Hufschmid's main page
Previous comments

My comments on
some recent events

22 February 2016

Why is NASA promoting tourism in outer space?
Why is the Flat Earth theory increasing in popularity?
Should businesses protect our privacy?
Donald Trump is getting the "Whitney Houston treatment"
Our leaders should understand genetics

Why is NASA promoting tourism in outer space?

One of the travel posters commissioned by NASA to encourage tourism in outer space. It says, "Visit the planet with no star" and "Where the nightlife never ends!"
Although NASA depends upon Russians, Europeans, and private companies to send supplies to the space station and put satellites in orbit, they have created a series of travel posters to promote tourism in outer space.

The poster that I find the most amusing is the one to the right that advertises a vacation on a "planet that does not have a star", thereby giving it "a nightlife that never ends".

Although the astronomers who discovered it don't know much about it, they estimate the temperature of its clouds to be above 880C, and that it has the mass of 1,900 Earths.

Is that really a "planet"? Or is it a "tiny star"? Regardless of what it is, a travel brochure to that type of planet is something I would expect in a comic book, not something from people who describe themselves as "scientists". Why is NASA doing this?

The pretty woman in that travel poster might cause you to fantasize about space travel, but before you do, I suggest you take a serious look at the photos from the Chinese lunar rover.

Have you seen China's photos of the moon?

China sent a robotic rover to the moon in December 2013, and Emily Lakdawalla from The Planetary Society posted some of the photos here and here.
The photos from the Chinese rover show that NASA, or Stanley Kubrick, or whoever designed the Apollo moon landscape, made only one significant mistake; namely, that the Apollo moon dirt was capable of forming impressions from astronauts and spacecraft. The photo below is from the Apollo astronauts. I have more photos and information about this issue in my ApolloMoonHoax.pdf file.

The photo below shows a trail created by one of the wheels of the Chinese rover.

The Chinese rover shows that the moon is exactly what some scientists expected it to be. Specifically, a ball of rock that has been pounded repeatedly by meteors. When the moon was first created, it must have had some type of surface features, such as wrinkles, cracks, and hills, but the surface has been eroded from billions of years of bombardment, and the surface has been covered by a thick layer of crushed and powdered rock and meteors.

The Chinese rover landed in an area that is extremely flat. There are craters of every size everywhere, but they are shallow, and they do not have sharply defined edges. All of the large craters have been almost completely buried by debris.
There is one crater (below) that is so recent that it has not yet been buried under debris. It still has lots of rocks along the inside and bottom of the crater. Many of the rocks on the inside edge have sharp edges. Since the rocks are not exposed to erosion by water or wind, sharp edges remain on the broken rocks for a very long time. Only bombardment by meteors can erode the edges, and that is a slow process.

Here on the Earth, snowflakes, soot, and dust can accumulate on the tops of objects - including sleeping animals - when there is no significant wind. By comparison, dust does not fall gently on the moon. As a result, there are no mounds of dust accumulating on top of the rocks.

Instead, the rocks that are protruding above the surface are bombarded by an endless stream of tiny meteors, cleaning them of dust and blasting pits into the surface.

Dust can settle on the tops of rocks only when the dust is ejected from a meteorite impact because in that situation some of the dust will travel at a low speed. The photo above shows dust on the rocks that are at the bottom of the crater.

At what rate are meteors hitting the moon?

If an astronaut were to take a walk on the moon, he would risk being hit by a meteor that is large enough to puncture his spacesuit. Would an astronaut have an average of 10 days before he had a chance of being killed? Or would he be able to walk for 1000 years before a meteor would harm him?

It is impossible to get information on the dangers of meteors because if anybody has studied it, their information is kept secret by the people who are promoting the Apollo moon hoax. However, a NASA site for children claims that millions of meteors enter the Earth's atmosphere every day. If that remark is accurate, then millions, or hundreds of thousands, of meteors are hitting the moon every day.

It is obvious that most meteors are too small to be significant because only a few satellites have been damaged from meteors, and astronauts have been surviving for years in the space station, including spending hours outside of the space station. Even though most meteors are harmless, before we consider sending tourists into outer space, scientists should have the decency to provide us with an honest assessment of the dangers of outer space.

The moon would be a miserable tourist destination

I would describe the moon as monotonous and dreary. You might find it interesting to note that some of the photos from the rover are color, but they are almost indistinguishable from the black and white photos. The only difference between them is that the color photos have a slightly brownish tint. If the color levels in the photos are accurate, the moon rocks reflect a bit more red light.

Perhaps under a microscope we would be able to see some colors, but with our eyes, the moon would appear to be dark gray, possibly with a brownish tint. I suppose the only way we would find colorful rocks would be to send some bulldozers to scrape away the layer of crushed rock. Or, would the rocks underneath be just as bland as those along the surface?

Millions of people have fantasies of traveling to Mars, but would Mars be any more interesting than the moon? The atmosphere of Mars causes the powdered rock to blow around, thereby creating sand dunes and eroding the sharp edges of the rocks, but does that make Mars more "exciting" than the moon? Or does it merely make Mars "a different type of monotony"?

Some of the rocks on Mars reflect more red light than those on the moon, but even so, I think that Mars would be a miserable, monotonous, dreary and dangerous place to live or visit. The surface of Mars might be more attractive than the surface of the moon, but that is like saying migraine headaches are more attractive than rheumatoid arthritis.

Even though Mars might be a bit less monotonous and dreary, I suspect that most people would prefer to live on the moon rather than Mars for two reasons. First, the sky on the moon would be beautiful because of the view of the Earth, whereas the sky on Mars would have nothing but stars and two dreary, dark moons.

Second, the people on the moon would be able to have conversations with people on the Earth, and they could see the Earth, which would make them feel less lonely. By comparison, the people on Mars would feel like they are in dark, isolated, solitary confinement cell, far away from life.

On the Earth, our deserts are spectacular because they have beautiful displays of sedimentary rock, igneous rocks, and eroded volcanoes. Our deserts also have dry creek beds, flowers, animals, birds, interesting cloud formations, rainbows, and a variety of colors at sunrise and sunset. The most barren, miserable area on the Earth is more spectacular than the most beautiful areas of Mars.

There might be some wispy clouds on Mars, but would they be attractive? Or would they resemble haze or dust? Actually, do human eyes have the ability to adequately see the Martian atmosphere or the Martian clouds? If you were standing on Mars and looked directly above your head, would you see the atmosphere? Or would the sky appear black and full of stars? Would you see the atmosphere when you were looking along the horizon? Or would it look like there was some haze along the horizon? Are rainbows possible on Mars? If so, would human eyes have the sensitivity to notice them?

Many people have been impressed by the beautiful colors and patterns in some of the photos of the universe, such as the photo below. Many people assume that if they could travel into outer space, they would see those bright, beautiful colors.

However, most astronomical photos are the result of long exposure times, and sometimes the colors and contrast levels are enhanced. If we were to travel around the universe and look at those nebula with our eyes, how many of them would we be able to see with our eyes?

If we could travel to Pluto, especially when it was at its most extreme distance from the sun, we would see a dark sphere. The surface is supposedly covered in frozen nitrogen, and some other frozen gases, but frozen nitrogen does not make a ball of rock beautiful, colorful, or fun to explore. Visiting Pluto would be as horrible as taking a vacation in a giant flask of liquid nitrogen, and in a dark room.

Pluto is dark, dreary, monotonous, and extremely dangerous. Pluto is useful only for scientific investigations, not for tourism.

NASA recently released a photo of Pluto that shows beautiful colors and details (a portion is above), but the colors were "enhanced". This image of Pluto is not what we would see with our eyes.

How long would we survive the radiation?

People in outer space, on the moon, or on Mars would be exposed to a lot of radiation from the sun and outer space. How dangerous would that radiation be? How long could an astronaut walk on the moon or Mars before he has a significant chance of suffering health problems from the radiation?

NASA refuses to be honest about this issue, but note that the colonies designed by real scientists, as opposed to colonies designed by artists, wealthy people, and businessmen, bury the living areas under several meters of dirt. However, the people who promote colonies on Mars are ignoring the dangers of radiation.

For example, the drawing below is at the Mars One website to show what they expect the Mars colony to be like in the year 2028. However, there is no explanation for the drawing as of February 2016. What are those conical shaped items? What are those cylindrical tubes that are covered in dirt? Why don't they provide an explanation of that drawing?

I found this newspaper article with a diagram, a portion of which is at the right, and an explanation of that drawing. The long cylindrical tubes are the living areas, and they are buried in dirt. There are no windows in the living areas. The conical structures that are connected to one another are the airlocks into the living areas, and they also have the showers and kitchens.

Note that in the newspaper's drawing, there are four astronauts playing volleyball. I suspect that this would be impractical in a pressurized spacesuit. Why don't they play volleyball inside one of the underground, pressurized living areas? I think it is because the people promoting Mars colonies are either ignorant about the concept of air pressure, or they are trying to fool us into believing that pressurized spacesuits are as comfortable as clothing. Also, the Mars One people are trying to ignore the fact that the living areas are as cramped as a submarine.

Also, note that there is an astronaut in the foreground casually reclining on a mountain that is overlooking the Mars colony. This also creates the impression that pressurized suits are comfortable, and it also fools people into believing that it's going to be fun to lie in the dirt on Mars and look up into the sky.

You can live underground here on the Earth

If a group of people want to live in a Mars colony, they do not have to travel to Mars because they can do it here on the Earth. All they have to do is purchase some barren land in Nevada or California, put a few shipping containers on the land, and then bury the containers in dirt. They would use solar panels for electricity, and they would never need to purchase food or water because they would do what the people on Mars would do; namely, produce their own food and recycle their water. For more realism, they could recycle their air.

Furthermore, individuals and families can live like that in most cities of the world. All they have to do is buy a house that has a basement that is so deep that it does not have any windows. They would live in the basement, and they would rent the upper portion of the house to people who prefer sunshine and fresh air.

If the people want to make their life even more similar to what it would be on Mars, then whenever they went outside, they would wear a pressurized spacesuit.

Comedians could create amusing real estate listings for houses on Mars, and lots of jokes about what it would be like to live in those conditions. Actually, comedians might help dampen the interest in Mars if they started making fun of the Mars colonies.

The Mars enthusiasts should practice what they preach

The businesses and people who are promoting outer space should be regarded as either ignorant fools, or as con artists. A society should not waste its resources or technical talent on their idiotic proposals. The people who propose colonies on Mars should be told to go into the desert of Nevada and live the way they expect people on Mars to live. Tell them to practice what they preach.

How many scientists are as naive as they appear?

Is Prof. Edward Young and the other scientists naive? Or are they liars?
Years ago I made this science challenge in response to a scientist who analyzed some rocks from Antarctica and discovered that they were identical to the rocks brought back from the moon by the Apollo astronauts. She came to the conclusion that the rocks that she found in Antarctica must have come from the moon. She assumed a meteor hit the moon with such force that some pieces of the moon flew into space and landed in Antarctica.

In January 2016, a group of scientists analyzed the oxygen isotopes in some of the moon rocks brought back by the Apollo astronauts. They discovered that the isotope ratios were "indistinguishable" from the rocks on the Earth. They developed the brilliant theory that the moon and the Earth must have originally been one planet, and that the moon was formed when a large meteor hit the Earth and knocked a large portion of the Earth into orbit.

Do the scientists who publish these reports really believe that Apollo astronauts landed on the moon? Or are they publishing these reports in order to help NASA fool us into believing the Apollo moon landings were real?

When are we going to fix our school system so that children are educated with the truth rather than with propaganda? When are parents going to show a concern that their children are graduating from school with no useful skills, and with a distorted view of life?
Don't blame our problems on stupid people

We have a tendency to blame the world's problems on "stupid" people, but our problems are not the result of stupidity. Overcrowding, war, pollution, divorce, crime, and bribery are not the result of "stupid" people. There are a lot of stupid people who are responsible, considerate, and willing to work as a team member, and there are intelligent people who are selfish, violent, and psychotic. Our problems are better described as being due to:
1) The people who have trouble controlling their animal cravings.
Our emotions were designed for a small group of primitive people. Our emotions want us to resolve problems by glaring, yelling, and hitting. When we follow our emotions, we are selfish and arrogant, and we want to be at the top of the hierarchy, and we want everybody to obey us and respect us.

2) The people who are mentally defective.
If a person's brain is not functioning correctly, then we cannot expect him to behave properly, even if he shows signs of intelligence.

Although mentally defective people are troublesome, I would say the world's primary problem is that most people have so little control over their arrogance and selfishness that they have trouble cooperating, compromising, dealing with criticism, discussing issues, and thinking about what is best for society. Most people spend their lives focused on titillating their emotional cravings.
People in Argentina using a baby dolphin to titillate themselves.

For an example of how most people do whatever titillates their emotions rather than putting effort into thinking about what would make the most sense, in February 2016 a group of people at a beach in Argentina saw a couple of small dolphins and took them out of the water. The people did not intend to hurt the dolphins. Rather, they wanted to use the dolphins to titillate themselves.

There were so many people at the beach struggling to hold the dolphins that one dolphin died from dehydration. If you had been at that beach and told the people that the dolphins need to be put back in the water, I suspect that the people would have responded: "We will put the dolphins back in the ocean! We are just looking at them. Mind your own business!"

Although it is unusual for people to find small dolphins at the beach, the behavior of the people at that beach is typical of people everywhere in the world. Specifically, the people were not interested in thinking about or discussing what was best for the dolphins. They were not even thinking of what would be best for the other people. Rather, each person was selfishly struggling to please himself with no regard for the dolphins or the other people. This is typical human behavior. First, consider how it is typical for women.

Why did women want to hold the dolphins?

The dolphins were babies, and that characteristic titillated the women's attraction to babies. Rather than think about the issue, the women responded by following their emotional cravings to hold the baby dolphins, as if they were baby humans. I would not be surprised if some of the women kissed or spoke to the baby dolphins, as they do with baby humans.

Although it is unusual to see women behave that way with dolphins, women all around the world regularly behave that way with dogs, cats, and other animals, and with stuffed animals and dolls. What is the difference between a woman who uses a baby dolphin to titillate her cravings for babies, and a woman who uses a dog? The only difference is that people have been selectively choosing dogs that tolerate or enjoy being treated like human babies, whereas wild animals do not like it, and some of them die from it.

If any of the men had used the dolphins for sex, most people would have been disgusted, but what is the difference between using a dolphin to satisfy sexual cravings, and using it to satisfy cravings for babies?

The only difference is that the animals can suffer pain and damage when men use them for sex. If there was a species of dog that enjoyed sex with humans, would it be acceptable to use dogs for sex?

Why do we consider it acceptable to use dogs as substitutes for babies, but unacceptable to use dogs for sex? I think it is because we have strong sexual inhibitions, and because men have a difficult time looking critically at women. We want to get on our hands and knees and worship women. Our emotions regard women as princesses, not as "female humans". We want to protect and care for women, not give them a critical review.

However, because men are competitive with one another, we can easily look critically at other men. As a result of our emotional bias, men look favorably upon a woman who uses a dog as a substitute for a baby, but we are disgusted with men who use dogs for sex.

Why did men want to hold the dolphins?

I think most of the men wanted to hold the dolphins so that they could become the center of attention and feel special. A man's most powerful emotion is not sex; it is our craving to be the top monkey in the hierarchy. Men have a powerful craving to compete with one another for dominance. This craving makes it difficult for men to look critically at themselves and favorably at other men. It also makes it difficult for us to compromise and cooperate. Some men have so much trouble controlling their craving to be important that they sabotage, cheat, hate, or suppress their competitors.

Our intense craving for status causes us to look for opportunities to show off. Those dolphins gave men that opportunity because any man who could hold one of the dolphins would become special. Furthermore, since men like to pamper women, any man who could get hold of a dolphin would be able to pass it onto a woman, thereby satisfying his craving to be a devoted prince who serves his princess.

Not many men have the opportunity to hold a baby dolphin, but men around the world are behaving in the same manner. The most obvious examples are the men who flaunt their material items. What is the difference between a man holding a baby dolphin, and a man showing off his expensive yacht?

The men who wanted to hold the dolphin were not interested in studying the dolphin, as a scientist would do. They didn't want to look closely at its skin, or its eyes, or its teeth. They wanted to hold the dolphin simply to feel special. They were behaving just like wealthy people who show off their expensive material items.

I think our craving to be important is the primary reason there are so many men who want to go into outer space and to Mars. Most men are not explorers; most men follow the crowd of sheep. Most men want to go to Mars in order to show off, just like those men who were holding the dolphins.

Many intelligent people are dangerous

We have a tendency to assume stupid people are a menace, and that intelligent people are wonderful, but a lot of intelligent people are just intelligent criminals. There are scientists who are lying to us about how we are going to destroy the Earth if we don't accept carbon taxes, and other scientists are lying to us about how the World Trade Center towers were destroyed by fire, and other scientists are lying to us about the Holocaust.

It is difficult to believe that a person who is born with exceptional intelligence would throw away his amazing gift and waste his life on crime, deception, and abuse, but history shows us that there is no shortage of intelligent people who are willing to behave in an irrational manner.

The reason is because scientists are just jumbles of genetic traits, just like everybody else. Intelligent people may end up with the same physical and mental disorders as the stupid people. For example, Daniel Gajdusek received a Nobel Prize for his medical research, but he was eventually convicted of molesting some of the 56 children, mostly boys, that he had brought to his home from the South Pacific.

If a factory worker was regularly coming home with young boys from trips to the South Pacific, a lot of people would suspect that he was a homosexual pedophile, but a doctor, a scientist, and a Hollywood director and can get away with this type of behavior for decades because animals are naturally submissive to whoever is in a leadership position. Our tendency to put our tail between our legs when we meet Jerry Sandusky, Jimmy Savile, Queen Elizabeth, Roman Polanski, and the Pope is allowing our "leaders of society" to get away with a lot of abuse and crime.

NASA could be doing something useful for us

Instead of wasting our resources and technical talent on projects to put people on Mars, and on trying to convince us to accept carbon taxes, NASA scientists could be helping to develop robotic vehicles, such as the rover that the Chinese just landed on the moon (the drawing to the right).

That type of vehicle would be useful for people here on the Earth, in addition to exploring the universe. At the moment those rovers are so crude that all they can do is take photographs and analyze soil samples, and they require humans to provide a lot of supervision, but if NASA would put some effort into improving them, we could use them for thousands of different purposes. For example, we could use them to monitor and observe wild animals, as well as control animal populations. We could use them in lakes and oceans to monitor pollution, fish, trash, underwater cables, pipelines, and pollutants.

When those vehicles become even more advanced, we would be able to use them for mining operations, servicing undersea cables, cleaning sewer lines, catching rats, and removing trash from forests and ponds. Farms and ranches would be able to use them to feed the animals, remove weeds, and bury the waste products from farm animals.

These vehicles could also be adapted for climbing along buildings to wash the windows, and for laying tile and cobblestones for foot paths, bicycle paths, and plazas. Eventually these vehicles would be useful on farms to pick strawberries, grapes, and tomatoes. They could also be used for delivering packages to people and businesses, and removing trash from the city's wastebaskets. With better image processing software and robotic arms, they would be able to sift through the trash and separate it for recycling.

Tourism should benefit society, not businesses

The Virgin Galactic company unveiled a new airplane in February 2016 to take people to the top of the atmosphere, and other private companies and government agencies are developing rockets to take people to the moon or Mars. When this technology is ready, businesses will offer tourist trips to outer space, Mars, and the moon.

I think we are wasting our technical talent and resources on these projects. I think that tourism in space is another example of how people are following their irrational emotional cravings rather than thinking intelligently about what to do with their lives. I think the attraction to outer space is due to two primary reasons:

1) People have been deceived by Hollywood and NASA into believing space travel will be fun.
2) There have been so few people to travel above the atmosphere that anybody who does so will become the center of attention. He will become much more special than the people who were holding the baby dolphin in Argentina. A person who is suffering from low self-esteem, or from some mental disorder that keeps him in a perpetual state of misery, is especially likely to be attracted to activities that allow him to feel special.

The people who want to go into outer space are likely to claim that they want to explore the universe, but I don't think many of them truly have an explorer's personality because they do not show any interest in learning about the universe. They haven't even bothered to learn enough about outer space to realize how dangerous, monotonous, and boring it would be. Some of them have not done enough research to realize that the Apollo moon landings are a hoax. Those people are not behaving like explorers. Rather, they are behaving like the people who were playing with those dolphins in Argentina.

Mars is so far away, and our rocket technology is so primitive, that a trip to Mars would require living inside a small metal container for about 9 months. It would be equivalent to a person living in a shipping container for 9 months, but without stepping outside of the container. It would be the most miserable 9 months anybody has ever spent, especially if the people were weightless the entire time. Even if we spin the container to provide artificial gravity, the trip would be miserable.

Actually, a good way to determine if a person would be able to handle a trip to Mars would be to lock the candidates into shipping containers for many months, and make them breathe recycled air, drink recycled water, and eat whatever food they would have to eat on that trip. That would give us an idea of who can tolerate such miserable, monotonous, confined conditions.

The astronauts in the space station make it appear as if they are enjoying themselves, but that doesn't prove anything. People have a tendency to get into the jobs they enjoy. There are people who love spending hours a day playing musical instruments or riding skateboards, but that doesn't mean you would enjoy spending your life on those activities.

In a free enterprise system, businesses compete to offer wealthy and mentally ill people whatever products they want, regardless of the value of those products. From the point of view of society, however, we are wasting technical talent and resources on many of the products that are being produced for the wealthy and mentally ill people, such as gigantic houses and trips to outer space.

Even if we had the technology to send "ordinary" people into outer space, I think it would be idiotic to support space tourism because the tourists would behave in space exactly as they behave here on the Earth. An example are the tourists who visit Stonehenge in Britain. The vast majority of people can spend only a few minutes gazing at the rocks at Stonehenge, and then they become bored. They then turn to drinking beer, eating, shopping, vandalizing, playing practical jokes on one another, playing with their cell phones, littering, and making a mess in the public bathrooms.

The photo below shows people having a party at Stonehenge. Note that they drop trash on the ground and walk on it rather than dispose of it sensibly. If those people were allowed to go to the moon or Mars, they would behave exactly on Mars as they do in Britain.

Many people are sloppy, dishonest, and irresponsible when they take trips to a local beach, park, theater, museum, or a forest. If a person cannot behave responsibly here on the Earth, don't expect him to be responsible in outer space or on the moon.

If tourists could travel to Mars, they would behave exactly on Mars as they do here on the Earth. Most of them would quickly become bored by the sand and crushed rock, and they would be irritated by the pressurized spacesuits. They would spend most of their time in the businesses that offer them beer, food, and shopping. Some of the tourists would steal "souvenirs" from the spacecraft and hotels, and some of them would dispose of their chewing gum by sticking it under tables or spitting it onto the floor. What would be the sense of supporting such tourism? Businesses would profit from it, but society would be wasting its resources.

Furthermore, until we develop rotating spacecraft to create artificial gravity, people will be weightless on their trips in outer space, and that will cause a lot of vomiting, dizziness, and miserable feelings. More people will get sick in outer space than they do on a boat in the ocean. Furthermore, on a boat, the sick people can lean over the railing and vomit in the ocean, but in a spacecraft, they have to vomit in the cramped, crowded spacecraft.

The bathrooms of a spacecraft might be the most miserable aspect of space travel, especially if there is no artificial gravity. Nobody enjoys the cramped bathrooms on aircraft, and the bathrooms on a spacecraft will be even more unpleasant.

Furthermore, spacecrafts do not have a source of fresh air. Some people complain about the lack of fresh air in an airplane, but airplanes have a constant flow of fresh air. By comparison, spacecraft have to recycle their air. Ideally, the people who travel into outer space would not be allowed to bring perfumes, hair sprays, and most other cosmetics, and they would be provided with a special diet that digests better in order to reduce the problem of farting and stinky poop. It would also be best if the people in outer space were not provided with foods and drinks that had a diuretic effect in order to reduce the quantity of pee and the consumption of water. It would also be best if they did not have access to alcohol or other drugs.

Unfortunately, in a free enterprise system, businesses pander to customers. For example, movie theaters offer sodas, popcorn, and other food items, even though those foods and drinks cause the seats and armrests to become sticky, and the floor to become messy. If businesses could offer trips to the moon or Mars, they would offer the people whatever candies, alcoholic beverages, perfumes, and other items the people were interested in purchasing.

Free enterprise does not provide us with sensible tourist trips or products here on the Earth, and it would not provide us with sensible trips to outer space. Businesses exploit us; they do not provide us with guidance or intelligent suggestions.

Tourists in outer space are likely to gain weight

Incidentally, you might find it amusing to consider that one of the problems with sending tourists to Mars is that many of them will gain weight on the trip. A lot of people gain weight when they take vacations here on the Earth, and this problem will be much more serious on a trip to Mars because the trip would take about 9 months each way, which is a long time to be confined inside of a cramped spacecraft with nothing to do.

Many people eat when they become bored, and businesses exploit the situation rather than try to control the amount of food that people eat. Therefore, with a free enterprise system, the businesses would compete with one another by offering the most exciting "party rocket" to Mars. This is how businesses are competing when they offer trips on boats and trips to Las Vegas, so why would businesses behave any differently when offering trips to outer space?

Some businesses would offer gambling during the trip, and some would offer alcohol or other drugs, and some would offer prostitution. None of those activities are illegal in outer space, are they?

If the people are weightless, they won't be inconvenienced by gaining weight on a trip to Mars, so it is conceivable that by the time a person gets back to Earth orbit, he is too obese to return to the Earth because he would be crushed by his weight. He would have to remain in Earth orbit. After many years, there could be thousands of obese people orbiting the Earth. Since they would be able to gain almost unlimited amounts of weight, a variety of businesses would regard them as profit opportunities. Some businesses would offer them food and drinks, while other businesses offer them weight-loss services, and some television companies would send camera crews into orbit to provide reality programs of the obese people.

We should reevaluate our attitudes towards tourism

A free enterprise system cannot provide us with sensible tourist trips, and our democratic governments cannot do it, either. Actually, our governments are behaving even more irrationally than the businesses. For example, as I made a joke about here, our city governments are wasting our tax money when they try to lure tourists to their particular city, and when they try to convince us to eat the particular foods that they produce. Society does not benefit from those idiotic competitions.

Even without free enterprise, it would be absurd to offer tourist trips into outer space. Most people do not have the emotional ability to handle the cramped conditions and bodily functions that they would be exposed to in outer space. Most men, and some women, cannot even remain calm around a woman who is breast-feeding a baby.

In a free enterprise system, it makes sense for businesses to offer tourist trips to Stonehenge, the petrified forest, and other areas where there is nothing for people to do, but from the point of view of society, we are wasting our time and resources on such trips. The people who take such trips are not learning much about the world, and those trips require a lot of resources, and a lot of time must be spent cleaning up the messes that the people make, and a lot of resources are spent on security to prevent people from vandalizing the sites and feeding candy to the wild animals. Likewise, there is no sense in sending tourists to Mars, outer space, or the moon.

It is especially idiotic to provide tourist trips for families with young children to Stonehenge or the petrified forest because the children will not be interested in those destinations and become extremely bored. The children will be a burden on the parents, irritate the other people, and increase the problem of littering, noise, and vandalism.

It makes sense for a society to arrange for recreational activities at lakes and parks because the people, including the children, will have something to do when they arrive at their destination. However, there is nothing for people to do on Mars, at Stonehenge, in Antarctica, at the petrified forest, and at many other areas. Most people can look at rocks and ice for only a few minutes, and then they become bored and restless.

Some of the areas that are currently being used as tourist attractions should be set aside for scientific research and for adults who have demonstrated above-average responsibility and neatness. Rather than arranging tourist trips to those destinations, it would make more sense for every city to provide museum exhibits of those areas. A museum exhibit of the petrified forest, for example, would allow people to view the petrified forest from within their own city.

In the world today, museums are not very popular, but we have the intellectual and artistic abilities to create exhibits that we enjoy so much that we visit them more than once. In our free enterprise system, businesses put a lot of resources into sports stadiums, Disneyland attractions, Hollywood movies, gambling casinos, and other entertainment, but if we get rid of the free enterprise system, our government can put resources into providing us with spectacular museums, recreational areas, swimming areas, and social clubs.

Museum exhibits could provide us with realistic simulations of taking a trip into outer space. As with a planetarium, the ceiling and walls would be full of stars. We could project a live view of the Earth that is coming from a satellite so that people could see what the Earth actually looks like from outer space. Since it would be a live view, people would be able to watch rain storms, lightning, auroras, and the lights of the cities turning on at night and off in the morning.

An exhibit that simulates the moon would have a floor that was covered with gray, crushed and powdered rock. There could be a walkway over the crushed rocks to allow people to walk through the area without getting particles in their shoes. For the people who want to walk on the moon, we could let them to get into pressurized suits that are attached to the ceiling by wires so that the person's weight is reduced, thereby giving him the sensation that he is on the moon.

Rather than send people to the moon or Mars, it would be much more sensible to put our technology into exhibits that simulate these trips. This would allow everybody to make trips into outer space, including people who are too old for space travel.

Modern technology gives us the ability to create museum exhibits that are spectacular and informative. An exhibit of space travel would allow people to satisfy their curiosity about space, and I think it would also help people to realize that the moon would be entertaining for only a few hours or days.

I think most people would quickly come to the conclusion that the crushed rocks on the moon's surface are boring, and the most spectacular aspect of the moon is being able to watch the Earth. I think that after visiting these exhibits, most people would come to the conclusion that the Earth is the most spectacular item in the universe. I also think people would come to the conclusion that pressurized spacesuits are more annoying than the most cumbersome winter clothing.

I suspect that a Mars exhibit would be less popular than an exhibit which takes people into orbit around the Earth or to the moon. The reason is because the Mars exhibit would have nothing to look at except stars and crushed rocks.

In this previous document, I pointed out that bicycles are being designed according to irrational consumer desires, and that if we eliminate free enterprise, most or all of our products will be redesigned, and many will be discontinued. I think the same situation will happen with many of our social and recreational activities. Without free enterprise, a lot of the activities that businesses are currently providing will be redesigned or discontinued.

For example, in the city I live in, there are regular festivals, such as Lemon festivals, French festivals, and Italian festivals. However, the primary activity at these festivals is the selling of foods, jewelry, and other items. Businesses are designing these festivals according to how they can profit from them. These are "business festivals", not "social festivals". The people who attend these festivals rarely meet new people, participate in any activity, get any useful exercise, or learn anything about themselves or the world. All they do is slowly wander around the businesses, eat or drink, and occasionally watch some group of people dance or sing.

Coffee shops are very popular in America, but I don't think it is because humans truly have a strong craving to drink large quantities of coffee in public. I think the coffee shops are the non-alcoholic equivalent of a bar. I think coffee shops and bars are popular because the world is full of lonely people, and these type of businesses provide people with the opportunity to get out of their house and be among other people.

The problem with coffee shops and bars is that their primary goal is selling as much food and drinks as possible, not helping people to meet one another or form stable friendships or marriages.

Gyms are also popular in America, but part of their popularity also seems to be because of the large quantity of lonely people who are looking for friends and a spouse. Unfortunately, the gyms are also an inefficient way of dealing with the problem of loneliness.

If we were capable of providing ourselves with government officials who truly cared about society, and if we did not have to deal with a free enterprise system, then we could design our city for human life rather than for businesses. For some examples:
• Our city festivals could be designed to encourage people to participate in activities rather than purchase items or watch other people do things.
• We could put as much effort into museum exhibits as we put into sports stadiums and Disneyland attractions, thereby creating exhibits that we enjoy visiting more than once.
• We could provide activities that are specifically designed to help us find compatible friends and a spouse.

If we also eliminate money, then we don't have to be bothered purchasing tickets for museum exhibits, recreational activities, social affairs, or meals. This would encourage people to get out of their house and do something rather than sit at home.

If some activities, recreational areas, or museum exhibits became so popular that they were overcrowded, the city would respond by creating more variations of them. For example, if a particular pond was attracting so many snorkelers and swimmers that the pond was becoming crowded, the city could build a new pond in a different location of the city, and it would be designed differently to provide variety. If a museum exhibit was becoming crowded, then the city could make another, similar exhibit, and they might put it in a different location of the city.

We could create spectacular museums

We have the ability to create museum exhibits that are more interesting and informative than anything we find at Disneyland or the IMAX theaters. We could provide them with high quality video displays, and we could provide some of them with virtual-reality helmets. Those type of exhibits could provide us with images and descriptions of Stonehenge, Antarctica, the petrified forest, and the coral reefs that we would never be able to see if we were to travel to those sites as a tourist.

The museum exhibits could provide us with video from drones, and there could be both slow-motion video and time-lapse video. Unlike a tourist, we would be able to observe events that are too slow to see, such as the movement of glaciers, or the movement of the sun through the Stonehenge rocks. There could be video made with infrared light to show us the animals or events that we cannot see during the daytime, or with visible light. There could be video from robotic cameras that are underwater, in the air, and traveling underground in gopher holes or caves.

If we change our society and our attitudes towards life, we could create museums that provide us with a tremendous amount of interesting information. We would learn more about the universe by visiting those displays than if we were to travel to the areas.

Furthermore, if we design a city as I've suggested, namely, clusters of large, tall buildings, there will be lots of areas in the buildings that don't have access to sunlight. People do not want to live, work, or eat in those enclosed areas, so we should use those areas for museum exhibits, video rooms, storage areas, and electrical equipment.

The photo to the right shows a planetarium in Berlin. As with many warehouses, theaters, and museums, it does not need windows. By making these structures freestanding, they waste land and sunlight. We would create a more attractive and compact city if we put those structures inside larger buildings or underground.

The photo below is of Vancouver, but I altered the buildings to make them taller. The outer sections of the buildings, which have windows, would be for apartments, social clubs and restaurants. The insides of the buildings would be for storage, video rooms, museums, laundry, and equipment.

By putting transportation and utilities underground, the land between the buildings would be reserved for creeks, parks, swimming areas, bicycle paths, and recreational areas. This would provide everybody with beautiful views, easy access to recreational areas, and a very quiet city. This would also allow people to enjoy the ice and snow since they would not have to travel in it.

As I mentioned in this previous document, we will further improve our city if we restrict it to people who are willing and able to do their hobbies as a team for the benefit of society rather than doing their hobbies only for themselves. For example, instead of thousands of people providing themselves with a small aquarium, imagine if they were able and willing to get together to build and maintain a few large aquariums for everybody to enjoy, such as the one below.

For another example, if the people who enjoy gardening, growing orchids, and creating bonsai trees were capable of working with other people for the benefit of society, then instead of doing gardening for themselves, they could get together to create spectacular gardens for the parks, restaurants, and recreational areas. Everybody would appreciate and benefit from their talents.

However, I should once again remind you that creating better museums, city festivals, school systems, government systems, etc., requires finding better people, especially for leadership positions. For example, right now there are museums around the world that are promoting the propaganda that Nazis gassed and burned 6 million Jews, and which promote the lies about Anne Frank's diary. We cannot create a better city if the voters continue to elect Angela Merkel, Hillary Clinton, and Al Gore.

Why is the Flat Earth theory increasing in popularity?

During the past year or so, a tremendous number of videos, articles, and comments have appeared on the Internet to promote the theory that the Earth is flat rather than spherical. Why is there a sudden increase in this theory?

If you look at a few of the Flat Earth videos and articles, you should be able to figure out that the group of people promoting this theory are the same people who are trying to blame the 9/11 attack on the Vatican, the Bush family, the bankers, or somebody other than Jews and Israel. Obviously, Jews have decided to promote the theory that the Earth is flat, but why?

It is not easy to understand criminals

Psychologists believe that criminals are just ordinary people who picked up criminal attitudes from the environment. Although it is true that children regularly pick up destructive attitudes, idiotic expressions, and bad habits from other people, adults who commit crimes are making a conscious decision to do so.

Probably everybody who has a driver's license has committed a crime, such as exceeding the speed limit, or not stopping completely at a stop sign, but ignore those trivial crimes and consider why some adults commit burglary, rape, murder, bribery, and blackmail.

We cannot blame these types of crimes on the environment. The adults who commit those crimes are living in the same environment as millions of other people. They are committing crimes because they have chosen to do so, and the only sensible explanation is because there is something different about the way their brain is functioning.

Some criminals may have physical disorders that interfere with their blood chemistry, which in turn interferes with the function of their brain. Others may be suffering from mental disorders that make it difficult for them to hold a job, think properly, enjoy life, and form stable relationships. Some of them may have psychotic cravings for wealth, excessive selfishness, or extreme levels of anger. Some of them may have a mind that is more similar in some respects to a monkey than a modern human.

The mental disorders of criminals make it difficult for us to understand their behavior. It is much easier for us to understand criminals when they are young because the younger a person is, the more similar he behaves to an animal, and that makes his behavior less complex and easier to understand.

For example, why do teenage gang members spend so much of their time marking their name or gang logo on walls? Furthermore, note that when they put their logos in a public area, other people respond by quickly removing them, and the gangs respond by putting the logos back on the walls. Why do they continually put their logos on walls when they realize that we don't want their logos, and that we are going to remove their logos, possibly within a day or two? Why don't they put their logos in areas where they can remain permanently, such as their clothing, homes, furniture, or automobiles?

Most of us cannot understand that behavior because we have no desire to do it, but we can understand it when we realize that male animals have a strong craving to mark their territory with odors. Furthermore, note that animals do not care if their markings are permanent. As soon as their markings are removed by the rain or covered over by another animal, they put their odors back. They don't care if they have to mark the same area over and over, for years. Also, note that animals do not care if another animal disapproves of his markings. Animals are arrogant, and they mark any area that they want to claim as their territory. They don't care if other animals become angry at them.

The similarity in behavior between animals and gang members leads me to conclude that the graffiti of gang members is the human equivalent of an animal that identifies his territory with scents.

Although animals can help us understand teenage gangs, animals do not do anything that is similar to promoting the flat Earth theory, so it's difficult to figure out why the Jews would do this.

Perhaps the Jews are concerned that every day more people are discovering that NASA lied about the Apollo moon landings. Perhaps the Jews believe that they can counteract this awareness and improve NASA's image by creating the impression that the people who doubt the Apollo moon landing also believe the Earth is flat, and, therefore, these "conspiracy theorists" are idiots who should be insulted rather than listened to. Some people describe this trick as "contaminating the punch bowl".

Why would Jews care if the Apollo hoax is exposed?

If the Jews are promoting the flat Earth theory in order to support the Apollo moon landing, that leads us to the question of why would the Jews, especially those in other nations, care if the Apollo moon landing is exposed as a hoax. If the hoax was perpetrated by Americans, then exposing the hoax would make America look bad, not Israel or Jews. So why would Jews want to keep this hoax covered up?

Perhaps the reason is because Jews had a significant role in it, or a significant role in the murdering, blackmailing, sabotaging, and bribing of people who opposed the hoax.

NASA is also involved with promoting carbon taxes, so perhaps the Jews are concerned that people are losing respect for NASA, and that is making it more difficult for the Jews to convince people to accept carbon taxes.

Or perhaps the Jews are worried that exposing such a large crime will have a domino effect in that people begin wondering what else they have been lied to about. A person who realizes that he has been lied to about the Apollo moon landing is much more likely to seriously consider the "crazy" conspiracy theories that Jews demolished the World Trade Center towers with explosives, and that the Jews are lying about the Holocaust. He is also less likely to trust the scientists and professors who promote carbon taxes, and he is less likely to trust the government officials who advocate a war with Iran or North Korea.

Until recently, the Jews were very successful in manipulating nations because they had fooled people into trusting both the Jews and the people in positions of authority. The Jews also fooled most people into believing that Jews are victims of mysterious anti-Semites, and that we are heroes when we feel sorry for and protect the Jews.

However, during the past 10 to 15 years, the Internet has allowed millions of people around the world to discover the truth about the Jews, and this knowledge has caused them to become more suspicious of both Jews and our authorities. These people are much more difficult for the Jews to manipulate compared to the naive sheeple.

The Jews need us to be submissive, ignorant, apathetic, trusting, and willing to follow orders without question. They don't want us to be educated, independent, concerned about society, interested in thinking for ourselves, or looking critically at the people in positions of authority.

Is there life on other planets?

NASA and many other people are continually trying to find evidence that there is life all over the universe. Although some people are truly curious about this issue, the Jews seem to be more interested in finding evidence of life so that they can fake an alien invasion in order to gain more control over the planet. This would explain why our government has secretly created several types of aircraft that resemble the spacecraft that Hollywood has created for aliens.

It is easy to conduct experiments to determine how quickly a living creature can develop from chemicals. For example, we could pulverize some dead animals, dirt, and plants. Then we add whatever other chemicals or elements we believe are necessary for the creation of life, such as ammonia, nitrogen, methane, potassium, and sulfur. We then pour that mixture into a container, seal it, and sterilize it. We then let the chemicals react with one another, and we expose them to whatever we believe creates life, such as lightning, gamma rays, low or high pressure, and ultraviolet light. We could create thousands of these containers, and expose them to different environments.

If life can easily develop from chemicals, then it would have a very easy time developing from a puree of dead animals and plants because that "soup" would have billions of pieces of DNA, RNA, and other biological chemicals. If life does not quickly develop in that type of soup, how easy would it be for life to develop when the soup consists of simpler chemicals?

If it were easy for life to develop from chemicals, then life would be developing all the time here on the Earth. Our planet is full of biological molecules, and they are being exposed to a wide variety of conditions, such as heat, pressure, electricity, and radiation, but how often do those chemicals spontaneously create life?

Some people might respond that new forms of life are being created all the time, but because they are very simplistic, they are quickly destroyed by the more advanced bacteria and other forms of life that already exist. If that were true, then we would be able to observe the new forms of life by putting the chemicals into a sealed container that has been sterilized.

For all we know, life is not easy to create. The Earth may be the first planet to have life. The creation of life might require a series of thousands of extremely unlikely events. Specifically, some molecules would have to collide with one another in just the right manner in order to create another type of chemical, and then some of those chemicals have to collide with one another in just the right manner in order to create some other chemicals, and so on. Some of the chemicals that are needed to create life might be created only when large comets crash into pools of hot water in volcanic areas, such as those at Yellowstone National Park.

A series of bizarre coincidences might have to occur thousands of times before life develops. If we understood the universe, we might discover that the odds of some of these events occurring is one with 10 billion zeros, and that life requires thousands of those unlikely events to occur. The odds of that happening may be a number so enormous that we cannot comprehend it.

Some scientists are claiming that the universe is only 14 billion years old, but for all we know, the universe is trillions of times older than that. We don't really know much about the universe. As I pointed out in other documents, nothing about the universe even makes sense. I would not be surprised if everybody is completely mistaken about what the universe is.

We should assume all new theories are crude

When the Wright brothers flew an airplane for the first time, they impressed a lot of people with their amazing, "modern" technology, but we consider their airplane to be worthless and crude. We should assume that our descendants will feel the same about our technology. Robots are an excellent example of this. Many people are impressed by our robots, but future generations will regard our robots as unbelievably crude and worthless.

Scientists should have the intelligence to realize that this same situation occurs with theories about the universe, dinosaurs, evolution, and everything else. We regard our theories as brilliant and nearly 100% correct, but future generations will regard them as crude and inaccurate.

For all we know, space is a substance, but it may not be a solid material, like rubber. Space may be able to move, perhaps like water can move, or perhaps like magnetic fields can move. A galaxy, for example, is described as a group of stars that are swirling around one another, but for all we know, it would be more accurate to describe a galaxy as a group of stars that are in a swirling pool of space, and that the stars are dragged around, like leaves in a whirlpool. The stars and planets may also drag space around with them, similar to the way the water molecules that are touching the surface of leaves are dragged along with those leaves, creating what physicists describe as a "boundary layer".

Why does the moon always face the Earth? Why does Mercury always face the sun? Why are all of the planets traveling in nearly the same plane, and in the same direction? Why are all of the stars in a galaxy traveling in nearly the same plane, and in the same direction? It could be because space is moving, and each star and planet is dragging space around with it, and the closer objects are one another, the more each of them is affected by the "boundary layer" of space that is "clinging" to the other object.

It is entertaining to create theories about the universe, but none of our theories can adequately explain the mysteries of the universe.
NASA wants us to believe that there is life all over the universe, but there may not be any life anywhere except here on the Earth. For all we know, trillions of galaxies have formed and vanished before life developed on the Earth.

Astronomers have already spent a lot of time searching for radio signals from other solar systems, but they have found nothing. I think we should face the fact that if life exists, we do not have the technology to notice it, so we are wasting our time and resources to continue looking for it. Also, I think that looking for life is giving people a bad attitude. Specifically, it encourages people to fantasize about space travel and aliens. It encourages people to get telescopes and look at outer space rather than enjoy the beauty of the Earth.

Enjoy the Earth, not outer space

Rather than promote space travel, telescopes, and aliens on other planets, I think it would be much more beneficial to encourage people to focus their attention here on the Earth. The photo below is of the Huntington Library in Los Angeles. Imagine living in a city in which all of the apartment buildings, office buildings, and factories are surrounded by gardens, parks, recreational areas, social clubs, creeks, foot paths, and swimming areas. You would not have to travel a long distance to enjoy the Earth. All you would have to do is look out the window, or take an elevator ride to the ground floor and step outside. In this type of city, you might discover that you enjoy walking or riding a bicycle to your job, a restaurant, or a social club.

We have a lot of options to make our cities beautiful and interesting. All we have to do is start discussing which of our options we would like to experiment with, and then do it. For example, we could design some ponds in the manner that we create aquariums. Specifically, we could put interesting rocks, caves, statues, and lights in the pond in order to provide the fish and turtles with homes, provide the plants with a base to grow on, and make the pond more interesting for people who want to snorkel or scuba dive.

I think people who are living in that type of city will enjoy life much more than people who are spending their time with Star Wars fantasies and telescopes. Looking through a telescope is a lonely activity that is best conducted in isolated, dark areas at night. I don't think a society benefits by encouraging such activities.

I think it would be better for scientists to be honest about space travel so that people realize that the Earth is the most beautiful object that we know of. We should enjoy our brief moment on this planet rather than fantasize about getting off the planet. We should focus on the Earth, not on outer space. We should send robots to explore the universe, and we should go to museums to see the video that the robots send back to the Earth.

We should not waste our technical talent and resources on appeasing wealthy people who have trouble enjoying life or who have intense cravings to feel special. Society should be designed for the people we consider to be "mentally healthy".

So, why is NASA promoting space tourism?

This leads me back to the question I asked earlier. Scientists should have the intelligence to realize that space travel is miserable, so why is NASA promoting space tourism?

The image to the right is another of the travel posters that NASA commissioned. That poster tries to fool people into believing that tourists will be able to drift slowly among the clouds on Jupiter in a hot air balloon, and that we will see auroras that are more spectacular than those on the Earth.

People have no desire to ride a hot air balloon at night near the Earth's poles to see auroras, so why would anybody want to do that on Jupiter? Most people would rather look at auroras in the photographs or video that was taken by people who suffered through the cold, lonely, nighttime sky, and who understand photography well enough to know how to capture events that are difficult for the human eye to see.

Why doesn't NASA want to send machines to explore space? Why won't NASA be honest about the dangers and monotony of outer space?

Only NASA knows for sure, but it might be because the proposals to send people to Mars are so difficult that the projects will require decades of funding, thereby providing thousands of NASA employees and officials with a high income for decades. In other words, NASA may be trying to boost interest in space travel so that they can justify a large budget.

NASA may have more worthless people and criminals than it has talented engineers and scientists. It may be better described as a "Den of Criminals" who are more interested in promoting carbon taxes than space exploration.

We can learn more from museums than from tourism

The NASA poster for Jupiter makes it appear as if observing auroras is fun, but if there was a museum exhibit on auroras, it could provide us with lots of high quality photos and video from photographers at different locations on the Earth. In addition to seeing different auroras, we would see different landforms, trees, creeks, and lakes. Furthermore, we would be able to watch both time-lapse video and slow-motion video, thereby providing us with a better understanding of what is going on in the atmosphere. We could also watch videos of the auroras taken from satellites and the space station. We would learn more about auroras at that exhibit than we would by traveling to those destinations. When we have the technology to send probes to Jupiter, the probes could send back video of the auroras on Jupiter, and that would allow us to learn about Jupiter's sky from the comfort of the Earth.

People are currently watching documentaries about African wildlife, whales, penguins, bird migrations, and butterflies on their television at home, and many people assume that if they were to travel to those same locations, they would see the same scenes. In reality, those photographers spent a lot of time following the animals to get just a few moments of video. They also suffered from heat, cold, insects, and brutal sleeping conditions. The photographers who traveled into caves to show us the bats living inside had to suffer from stench and filth.

Rather than encouraging tourism, I think it would be better for a city to provide lots of free video rooms and museum exhibits that have large, high quality video monitors. If you were living in that type of city, then instead of inviting a friend to your house to watch a program on your small television, you could invite several people to one of the video rooms to watch a video on a large, high quality monitor. It would be less awkward to invite people to one of those video rooms because you would be inviting them to a public area where they can freely come and go without feeling uncomfortable.

In a city in which there are lots of free, public recreational areas, video rooms, social clubs, restaurants, and other activities, some people might hardly ever go home, except to sleep and change their clothing. Some people might spend almost all of the day and evening in the city.

What would it feel like to be in a spinning spacecraft?

If we could create large space stations that spin to produce artificial gravity, we would make space travel much more pleasant. If an astronaut looked out the window, he would see stars moving around him. Would that have any effect on him, such as making him dizzy? This issue has no importance, but it makes me wonder if being on a spinning spaceship would really be as comfortable as being on the Earth.

When I am in an automobile, and I am the first in line at a red light waiting to turn left, and the perpendicular street is allowing cars to make a left turn, those cars cross very close to me. I've noticed that if watch each of them as they pass by me, I have to move my eyes back and forth very quickly, and it feels like I'm going to get dizzy. I feel more comfortable if I stare at straight ahead and ignore the cars. What would happen if I was on a spinning spacecraft and I watched the stars moving around me?

When we look out of the window in an airplane, the items outside are moving horizontally, but in a spinning spacecraft, the stars would move vertically from a window on the outer circumference of the spacecraft, and in a circle if we were looking out of a window that was on the side of the spacecraft. Would either view make us dizzy? Would we prefer not to look out the window? Or would only some people be affected by it?

It seems that all of the intelligent animals are maintaining a three-dimensional image of the world inside their mind. This allows us to turn our heads without the world spinning around us. It also allows us to close our eyes, move to another location, and when we open our eyes we have an accurate idea of where we are.

Maintaining a 3-D image of the world also prevents "voids" in our visual image. Processing the data from our eyes takes a certain amount of time. By maintaining a 3-D model in our mind, then we do not have to process the visual data as thoroughly. All we have to do is compare the image that is coming from our eyes to the model in our mind, and that will show us our orientation, and what has changed.

If we did not maintain a 3-D model in our mind, then every time we moved our eyes, our brain would have to spend time trying to figure out what we were looking at. If we rotated our head, our eyes would send hundreds of images, and it's unlikely that we would be able to process the images fast enough. This would cause the images to develop "voids", similar to the problem of watching a video via the Internet when the data is not coming into the computer fast enough.

By comparison, birds may not maintain a 3-D model of the world in their mind. This would explain why they move their head in a jerking manner. By holding their head in one position for as long as possible, and then quickly moving it to another position, they reduce the amount of visual data that they have to process.

Should businesses protect our privacy?

As of February 2016, the management of the Apple company is refusing to provide the FBI with assistance in accessing data on an iPhone used by Syed Farook, the man accused of killing people in San Bernardino. There are a lot of interesting - and suspicious - aspects of this case, such as:

• Within hours of finding his phone, the FBI had his passcode reset, thereby making it impossible to get the data they are now asking Apple to get for them. The FBI responded that those accusations are not exactly accurate. Who should we believe? Should we believe the journalists, who have a history of lying to us? Or should we believe the FBI officials, who also have a history of lying to us?

• Who in the FBI authorized changing the passcode, and why would he do it within hours of finding the phone rather than discussing the issue? Is the FBI being honest when they claim that their decision to change the passcode was sensible? Or is the FBI lying to us and trying to impede the investigation, just like they and other government agencies did on 9/11 when all of them immediately began seizing and/or destroying security camera videos, cell phones, and the rubble from the World Trade Center towers?

• Is the FBI telling us the truth when they say the shooting in San Bernardino was conducted by two Muslim terrorists? Or was that attack just another Israeli false flag operation that failed? Was Syed Farook just another patsy? If he was a patsy, his phone might expose some of the Jews, FBI agents, and other officials who arranged for him to be a patsy, and that would explain why so many people are struggling to keep that data a secret.

However, nobody is discussing any of those important issues. Rather, everybody is focusing on the issue of whether the government should be able to access data on our phones. Tim Cook, Apple's CEO, is refusing to help the FBI get access to that phone data, and his reasoning is that Apple wants to protect the privacy of their customers. (Here is his first response, and here is his second.) He justifies this policy with the same two arguments that people have been using for centuries to justify privacy:

1) Where do we draw the line?
According to this argument, if we give the government access to Syed Farook's phone data, the government is likely to make demands in the future to see other people's personal information. We could describe this as, if we give the FBI an inch, they will take a mile. Through the years the government will get more access to our private information, and eventually we will have no privacy at all.

Some people refer to this concept as going down a "slippery slope", or "setting a precedent", or "opening Pandora's box". As Tim Cook described it, the government may:
...demand that Apple build surveillance software to intercept your messages, access your health records or financial data, track your location, or even access your phone’s microphone or camera without your knowledge.

In their second letter, he described it as:
The order would set a legal precedent that would expand the powers of the government and we simply don’t know where that would lead us. Should the government be allowed to order us to create other capabilities for surveillance purposes, such as recording conversations or location tracking? This would set a very dangerous precedent.

2) Our authorities cannot be trusted.
According to this argument, all throughout history, and in every nation, we can find government officials who are abusive and dishonest. If Apple modifies the software to give the government what it wants, other government employees might abuse that software in the future, and criminals may get a copy, also, thereby allowing crime networks to access our personal data. Two of Tim Cook's remarks:
• In the wrong hands, this software — which does not exist today — would have the potential to unlock any iPhone in someone’s physical possession.

• The government suggests this tool could only be used once, on one phone. But that’s simply not true. Once created, the technique could be used over and over again, on any number of devices.

Those two arguments are used repeatedly by people who promote privacy, but neither of them are intelligent justifications for privacy. Rather, they are attempts to manipulate us by stimulating fear. Those two arguments are so generic and vague that the FBI could use those same two arguments to justify the exact opposite policy. To understand this, first consider how the FBI could use the "where do we draw the line" argument to justify the opposite policy:

1) Where do we draw the line?
If we allow Apple to refuse to provide the FBI with access to that phone data, where do we draw the line? What if some other company decides to refuse to help law enforcement solve some other crime? What if a doctor refuses to provide a patient's medical or dental records? What if a scientific laboratory refuses to do a chemical analysis of some evidence at a crime scene, or refuses to provide a DNA analysis of a hair sample?

And what if businesses in foreign nations decide to refuse to help American law enforcement by claiming that they are protecting the privacy of their customers? What if a Swiss bank refuses to provide financial data of people the American government is investigating for tax evasion, money laundering, human trafficking, weapons smuggling, or the sale of stolen property? What if an American citizen is kidnapped in Columbia, and Colombian businesses refuse to participate in helping to solve that crime?

If we allow Apple to make their own decisions on how crimes will be investigated, then we are going down a very slippery slope. We open a Pandora's box in which other businesses will want to make decisions on how to deal with crime investigations. This puts the law enforcement agencies into a subservient role. They will have to plead with the businesses to provide them with assistance in solving crimes. This will lead to a world that is dominated by criminals.

Now consider how the FBI could use the "authorities cannot be trusted" argument:

2) Our business leaders cannot be trusted.
All throughout history we find business leaders cheating customers, stockholders, the military, and their own employees. They have routinely deceived us in their advertisements, and they have often provided us with deceptive, worthless, and dangerous medications and products. Some have inflated their stock prices and others have operated pyramid schemes. Factories would still be abusing children today if the government had not put a stop to their abuse, and many businesses have shown no concern for the safety of their employees. They also pollute rivers, cut down every tree in a forest and leave behind a wasteland that is washed into the river, and they mine coal without cleaning up the mess when they are finished. They use illegal immigrants as a cheap labor source, and they look for ways to avoid paying taxes.

Furthermore, many businesses are secretly involved in criminal activities, such as money laundering, human trafficking, drug dealing, loansharking, and counterfeiting products and money. Banks have routinely allowed people to use their services to launder money, and telephone companies knowingly provide phone services to people conducting telemarketing scams.

It would be absurd to allow criminal businesses to decide for themselves how to investigate crimes, and since we don't know which businesses are involved with crime it would be best not to let any of them dictate how our nation will investigate crimes.

We cannot trust our business leaders to run their business in an honest and responsible manner, so why should we let them make decisions on how to investigate crimes? They show psychotic levels of greed and selfishness. The free enterprise system is putting them into competition to make money, and this is allowing some amazingly selfish and abusive people to rise to the top positions in business. They try to form monopolies, and they conspire against their competitors. They regularly steal technology from one another, and they plagiarize one another's products. Some of them deceive or bribe government inspectors who visit their facilities to check sanitation, safety equipment, and pollution controls.

Many businesses have been caught bribing and influencing government officials. The business executives want to be treated like Kings and Queens, and they want to treat the rest of us like animals. The public needs to be protected from them. Business leaders should not be given the authority to decide how our legal system is going to operate. They are too abusive, dishonest, and selfish to make decisions about how crimes will be investigated. Our business leaders need to be observed and kept under control, not provided with authority over our law enforcement agencies.

“OMG! What if my phone data gets into the wrong hands?”
Tim Cook is not providing an intelligent response to the FBI, and he is not encouraging discussions or research. Rather, he is trying to manipulate us by causing us to create imaginary scenes in our mind of dishonest government officials and crime networks who have access to our telephone data, school records, medical records, and financial information. He is hoping that we will frighten ourselves with those images.

Tim Cook could even be described as lying to us. For example, in his second response, he wrote,
"The government would have us write an entirely new operating system for their use. "

The government is asking Apple to modify their existing operating system, not create a new one. The difference is subtle but significant. Tim Cook is trying to fool us into believing that the government is asking for some incredibly difficult task but, for all we know, it would take one computer programmer a few hours to do what the government is asking.

Also, in that same sentence, Cook wrote that the government wants the operating system "for their use", which implies that the government officials are going to use it on a regular basis. He would be more honest if they had written, "The government wants us to modify the operating system of one on our phones so that they can get access to the data on it." However, he shows no interest in being honest. Rather, both of his documents are showing a deliberate attempt to frighten us and manipulate our opinions.

In an email message to the Apple employees, Tim Cook tried to manipulate emotions with a technique commonly used by advertisers. Specifically, he told the employees about a 13-year-old child and a veteran:
One email was from a 13-year-old app developer who thanked us for standing up for “all future generations.” And a 30-year Army veteran told me, “Like my freedom, I will always consider my privacy as a treasure.”

This technique is common in television advertising. Instead of describing the product in an intelligent manner, the advertisement shows children or other people enjoying the product, and praising the product. This is an effective technique to manipulate people who don't like to think, or who are stupid. His email message gives us an indication of how he regards the Apple employees.

Imagine if scientists were using that type of "reasoning" to justify their theories. For example, imagine a physicist publishing a scientific report with such remarks as:
Our work at CERN has shown evidence that the Higgs Boson particle really does exist, and for further proof, I received an email from a 13-year-old boy who thanked us for our brilliant research, and a 30-year Army veteran told me, "Like my freedom, I consider your work as a treasure."

Are the Apple executives any more honest than the FBI management? People in a democracy regularly make sarcastic remarks about their incompetent and dishonest government officials, and although business executives are definitely more competent, are they any more honest?

For all we know, if we could remove the secrecy that is protecting business executives, we would find that they are more diabolical, selfish, and untrustworthy - as a group - than the government officials.

For all we know, the reason so many business executives appear to be more honest than government officials is simply because there are now so many laws restricting their behavior that they are essentially in a cage that is restricting their ability to abuse us.

Some people might respond that Apple has created some wonderful products, and I am excessively harsh with my criticism. Yes, Apple has created some impressive hardware and software, but is it because of the management of Apple? Or is it because there are some talented people working for Apple?

If we could remove the secrecy with businesses, we might find that many of the top executives are not contributing much of anything to their products. Many of them may be spending their time waging economic warfare, such as buying and selling other companies, looking for tax loopholes, trying to find a foreign nation that will allow them to produce items at a lower price, and putting pressure on their suppliers to give them better deals on raw materials.

A business is a team, and the top management does not deserve all of the credit for what the team is doing. Actually, I think a lot of businesses would improve if we replaced some of their top management. I think a lot of the top corporate leaders are encouraging bad attitudes, such as hating competitors, cheating competitors, exploiting customers, and exploiting foreign nations. Furthermore, I think their neurotic cravings for wealth are a bad influence on society. They encourage the hording of absurd quantities of material items and gigantic mansions, and they encourage people to compare one another's material wealth. They encourage monkey behavior, not human behavior.

Don't live in fear!

As I've explained in other documents, the best reaction to a problem is to look for solutions. Try not to let people manipulate you with fear. Exert some self-control over your emotions.

For example, in regards to the problem of crime networks and government officials spying on us, one solution to that problem is to eliminate secrecy for everybody. It would be foolish to let the government have access to information about us while allowing our government officials to be secretive. It would be better to have a publicly accessible database that has information about everybody, including the government officials, policemen, and journalists.

The police want information about us because that information is valuable in helping them to solve crimes. However, the same concept applies to people in influential positions. By having information about the FBI, policemen, journalists, government officials, and business leaders, we will do a much better job of determining which of them are involved with crimes and which of them are incompetent. A database of everybody's life would make it very difficult for people to arrange false flag operations and form crime networks.

Of course, this issue is complicated because in the world today, that type of database would identify the people in the FBI, military, and some other agencies, and that could hurt the honest people in those agencies, and it could interfere with their attempts to solve crimes.

However, the only reason that we need secret agencies today is because we have foolishly allowed the world to become dominated by crime networks, and we also promote the philosophy that it is sensible for every nation to send spies to other nations.

If we find the emotional ability to experiment with different policies towards crime, and if we succeed in getting rid of the crime networks, then the only crimes would be from individual citizens. And if we evicted criminals to a City of Misfits as soon as they are caught committing a crime, then there would not be many crimes for us to deal with. In such a case, we would not need secret agencies to fight crime. The police agencies would be able to operate in the open.

If we went even further and created a world of small, independent nations, as I've described in other documents, then we could prevent nations from building military weapons and spying on one another. We would not need secret agencies to watch other nations. The people who were supervising the world would be able to do so out in the open. The policemen would not have to live in fear of retaliation by criminals, for example.

In the world today, we need secret agencies, but ideally, we would get rid of secrecy. The FBI, military, and CIA need secrecy right now, but secrecy is hurting them and interfering with their operations. For some examples:

• They do not know for certain what everybody in their organization is doing. During the 9/11 attack, for example, how many people in the military or FBI were aware that some of their members were involved with that attack?

For another example, consider one of the many possible ways to explain the strange events in the Syed Farook iPhone case; namely, that an honest FBI agent may have discovered that Jews were setting Farook up to be a patsy, and that they had loaded his phone with calls to people in the Iranian government. The Jews put the phone in a location where it would be found, and they wanted people to look at the data on the phone and discover the Iranian connection. The Jews would then instigate fear and hatred of Iran. Perhaps an honest FBI agent decided to change the passcode on the phone to prevent other people from finding that false information.

• The people in our law enforcement agencies cannot put a photo, DNA sample, or fingerprint of somebody into a computer and get information on who he is. They don't know if a person is in the country legally, an employee of some other secret agency, or a student.

• The lower level people in the FBI, military, and other agencies do not know much about their leaders. This allows the people in leadership positions to be agents of foreign nations, criminals, or lunatics. Those leaders could send people out on worthless missions in order to waste their time or set them up to be killed. For example, the sailors who were told to get on the USS Liberty and sail to the Middle East were set up by people in the American government to be killed by Israelis.

The people in the secret agencies are undoubtedly provided with more truthful information than any of us, but none of them can be certain that they really know the truth about everything. And none of them can be certain that the people in their management are working on their side. It would be better for everybody if we could get rid of secrecy.

Eliminating secrecy is like putting rocks into an acid bath. By eliminating secrecy, we expose the truth about people. Although honest people will often be embarrassed by some of the information, they will not be harmed by it. The only people who will truly suffer from honesty and openness are the people who are trying to deceive or hurt us.

Focus on society, not yourself

When you contemplate the problems of the modern world, don't focus on how the problem affects you, or a business, or some organization. Focus on how it affects society, or the human race.

Tim Cook, and other people who promote secrecy, try to focus your attention on yourself. They want you to frighten yourself with thoughts of people spying on you. You should not focus on yourself. Look at issues from the point of view of what would be best for the human race. When you focus on yourself, you can reach a very different conclusion compared to when you focus on what is best for the human race.

If you analyze the issue of secrecy only from the point of view of your personal life, you can easily frighten yourself with images of criminals and dishonest government officials spying on you, and using the information they gather to cheat or abuse you. It is more sensible to consider how secrecy affects everybody in society as a group. What will be the effect on society if we eliminated secrecy? How will the human race be affected if we put details of everybody's life in a publicly accessible database?

If we were to eliminate secrecy, it would create turmoil among business leaders, government officials, journalists, church officials, and many other people in leadership positions simply because many of them are involved with crimes, and many of them are abusive, psychotic, and sexually disturbed. But why should you or I care about protecting those people? Why should we continue to live in a world that is dominated by freaks? It would be better for the human race to throw the entire world population into an acid bath and then cleanse our governments, media, and businesses of its abusive people.

You would be embarrassed if information about you was released to the public, but you would not be harmed. However, many people in leadership positions would be exposed as criminals or psychos.

You can often get a better understanding of an issue if you take an extreme example. So let's imagine that we remove secrecy to such an extreme that when people take photographs with their cell phone, the photographs go into their entry in that publicly accessible database, thereby allowing everybody to browse through those photographs. What would happen to the human race if everybody was capable of looking at other people's personal photographs, telephone data, school records, and medical records?

Before you try to answer that question, let's consider an even more extreme example. Imagine that aliens from other planets actually do exist, and they have been secretly studying the Earth for thousands of years. Imagine that they installed microscopic video cameras all over the Earth, and they have been recording everything we do and say. And imagine that they have now decided to let us know of their existence, and they are putting all of that video on the Internet.

We would be able to look through those videos to see the intimate details of everybody's life. We could watch video of your life, and we would be able to listen to conversations that you had with your friends and family members. We would be able to see what you ate for breakfast every morning, and how you slept through the night, and how you brushed your teeth. And imagine that there was also video of you in the bathroom and bedroom.

That video database would provide as much information about our lives as a group of scientists who are studying rats in a laboratory. Although we would all be embarrassed by the video of ourselves, that database would be incredibly useful and fascinating.

In addition to exposing criminals, we would also be able to look at the video that was recorded during the Middle Ages, and we would be able to watch the people as they woke up in the morning, talked to one another, and did whatever people did during that era. We would be able to look through the video of the ancient Romans, and we would be able to watch them as they built bridges and figured out how to create concrete. We would be able to watch the ancient Egyptians building the pyramids, and we would be able to observe what they ate for dinner, and what their conversations were about.

If there was such a database, everybody would be fascinated by it, and it would provide us with tremendous detail to historical events. That type of database would also help us to understand human migrations and the different races of people.

Although each of us would be embarrassed about the video of ourselves, everybody would eventually realize that the majority of people behave in a manner that is very similar to everybody else. Only a minority of people have truly odd behavior. Most people are so similar to other people that we would become bored watching video of them and listening to their conversations.

You can actually determine this right now simply by going out into the public and getting near people at restaurants, trains, shopping centers, and parks. Eavesdrop on their conversations. You will discover that most people's conversations are nearly identical to everybody else's. Most people's conversations are dominated by simplistic remarks about their friends, family members, and their job, and sometimes they make simplistic remarks about political issues, television programs, movies, Hollywood celebrities, sports, or food.

Some people frighten themselves with fantasies that NSA employees are spying on ordinary people, but imagine yourself doing such a job. Imagine spending 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, watching ordinary people. That job might be interesting for a few days, but after a while you would get tired of it. The reason I say this is because people do not enjoy eavesdropping on other people right now. The only people who seem to enjoy eavesdropping are people who are very lonely, very bored, or suffering from some mental problem. Most of us do not want to listen to other people's conversations. We insult and reprimand people who speak loudly in public.

Apple is concerned that the government will get access to our phone data, but who wants to see your phone data? Even if we could get access to your phone conversations, who wants to listen to your conversations? When people are in public and speaking loudly on a phone, they are reprimanded. We do not want to listen to the conversations of strangers. We want to listen to conversations only with people we have some interest in.

Eliminating secrecy would create trauma

If some aliens from another planet were to provide us with an extensive collection of video of the human race for thousands of years, many of the people in the advanced nations would show a strong interest in watching people in the bathroom, having sex, and masturbating. The reason there would be so much fascination with sexual issues is because people in the advanced nations rarely see those activities. However, after watching those videos for a few weeks, most people would get tired of it.

Our primitive ancestors were regularly exposed to naked bodies, mothers who breast-fed their babies, and people pooping and masturbating. The people did not spend their time watching people do those things, however.

There is nothing fascinating about poop, pee, childbirth, masturbation, or even sex. People become fascinated by those activities only when they grow up in a sexually inhibited society that keeps those activities hidden and secretive. If we provide people with unlimited access to information about those activities, people would become tired of looking at it.

Of course, there always seem to be exceptions, so we might discover that there are some people who never get tired of watching people on the toilet. However, you should not be concerned that a few people are emotionally disturbed. Don't let them ruin your life. Don't frighten yourself with images of mentally ill people who are watching you and laughing at you. You would not care if a dog was watching you, so why care if a mentally disturbed human watches you?

What would happen to children if they were raised in an environment in which they were never allowed to see animals poop, pee, have sex, or give birth? I think they would become adults who giggle or become hysterical whenever they saw an animal pee or give birth, and they would become parents who believe that children will be harmed if they see animals do such things, and so they would protect their children from such dangerous "pornography".

In other documents I suggested that society encourage people to be naked at public beaches, and that schools teach children about sex. I think this will provide children with a more suitable environment. I think it will prevent children from developing absurd fascinations with sexual issues, and they will become adults who can handle nudity as calmly as our prehistoric ancestors.

If we eliminated secrecy tomorrow, and put everybody's personal data on the Internet, including photos of their naked body, there would be a transition period during which people became accustomed to this new environment. Since people have a natural resistance to changes, an enormous percentage of the population would be emotionally traumatized and resist the change. They would whine about the insanity and dangers of providing access to everybody's personal information, and many of them would predict that people will commit suicide, the economy will fail, and the nation will disintegrate.

The transition period would be awkward and embarrassing for all of us, but it would not last forever. For some people, the transition would last only a few days, and for others it would last for months, but eventually all "normal" people would become accustomed to the database, and they would lose their fascination with nudity, sex, and masturbation. They would then be able to relax and return to their normal life, except that they would finally be able to deal with sexual issues in a calm and sensible manner.

In a previous file I pointed out that people enjoy difficult physical tasks, such as athletic events and climbing mountains, but most people are afraid to suffer any type of emotional pain, so they resist activities that might cause them even mild emotional discomfort. Unfortunately, in this modern world, it is more important for us to be able to deal with emotional pain than physical pain.

Our leaders are encouraging idiotic behavior when they promote the theory that we need to keep our personal data a secret. It would be better if they told people that it is time to "grow up" and learn to deal with sex, masturbation, and other issues. Our leaders should also tell people that it is time for them to be honest about themselves and their life rather than try to deceive people with false images of themselves, lies about their past, and by hiding their qualities that they are ashamed of.

After people became accustomed to a database with information about us, most people would notice that it is incredibly useful for helping us to eliminate crime and corruption. It would allow us to see the truth about people, and that would help us find friends, a spouse, and coworkers who truly are compatible with us. And it would help us determine which of our leaders needs to be replaced. The database would also be useful for helping us to understand human health.

We should stop tormenting people who are different

If everybody's phone data was put on the Internet right now, the data of some famous people would be accessed by lots of people, but the only people who have to worry about having their phone data or personal information put on the Internet are people who are involved with crimes or bizarre activities.

Some women might have used their phone to take photos of their naked body, but those women are not going to be harmed if those photos are put on the Internet. If those women had been born a few thousand years earlier, people would have seen their naked body. A woman is not harmed when somebody sees her naked body. Encouraging people to believe that nudity is harmful is encouraging people to work themselves into a state of hysteria over a meaningless issue.

Tim Cook is homosexual, and if you have heard what some homosexuals do with their partners, you can understand why some homosexuals would be embarrassed if their phone photos were made public. However, we don't solve this problem by providing homosexuals with secrecy. A better solution to this problem is to stop tormenting homosexuals and other people with sexual problems, and accept the fact that they are different from the rest of us.

The creation of life is a complicated process, and all living creatures suffer from imperfections that are caused by genetic mistakes and environmental problems, such as accidents, pollutants, and radiation. Homosexuals, people with both male and female sexual organs, and other people with sexual problems should be treated the same as we treat people with freckles, diabetes, and birthmarks. We don't torment people with freckles, so why torment people with sexual problems? People with sexual disorders are already suffering, and we don't make their situation better by hurting them even more, and we don't improve our lives, either. Actually, we ruin life for everybody by creating a miserable social environment in which people hate and hurt one another.

Everybody has mental and physical problems, but as long as a person is contributing to society and not hurting other people, we should accept him and his defects. Instead of tormenting people with problems, we should try to understand which problems are genetic, and which are environmental, and we should try to reduce the problems in the future generations so that each generation is healthier than the previous generation.

Instead of encouraging paranoia of being observed, our leaders should encourage people to exert some self-control and think more often. Practically everybody has masturbated and experimented with sex, so why should we be ashamed of it? We should accept this fact rather than ignore it or be embarrassed of our sexual activities. If we send people to Mars, some of them are going to masturbate or have sex. Are the people on Mars going to deal with that issue? Or are they going to pretend it doesn't exist? Do the people in the space station masturbate?

How much privacy would you have on Mars?

The people who want to go to Mars, the space station, or the moon would live in structures that are as crowded as a submarine. As a result, the people would not have much privacy. The people in a Mars colony would be living in such close contact with one another that they would know who is friends with who, and they would often overhear one another's conversations. They would notice how often people go to the bathroom, how much time they spend in the bathroom, and who is snoring at night. They would notice who is the sloppiest in the bedrooms, bathrooms, and dining areas. They might also notice how often everybody is masturbating, farting, and picking their nose.

The people on Mars would have only slightly more privacy than our prehistoric ancestors. If it is true that we need a lot of privacy, then it will be impossible for people to enjoy life in a Mars colony, and it would be impossible for people to enjoy camping trips.

It should be obvious that humans do not need privacy. It was not even possible for people to have much privacy until we began developing large homes that provided people with separate, isolated bedrooms and bathrooms.

I think the two primary reasons that people want secrecy are:
1) The animals that are preyed upon by carnivores are paranoid of being observed, and most people don't have enough self-control to ignore that paranoia.

2) A lot of people are involved with crimes, or with activities that they are embarrassed or ashamed of.

In previous documents, I pointed out that we need to look at the advantages and disadvantages to all policies. The benefits of eliminating secrecy are tremendous. It helps us to reduce crime, find compatible friends and a spouse, and make better decisions on whether our leaders need to be replaced. It also makes it much easier for us to study human health, and the differences between men and women, different races, and different age groups.

What are the disadvantages to society for eliminating secrecy? And what are the benefits to society to allow people to be secretive? I cannot think of any. Can you?

Most people don't discuss issues; they fight over them

The issue of privacy and secrecy did not exist in prehistoric times, but in modern society it is only one of thousands of issues that we must discuss and compromise on. There may be a lot of people having intelligent discussions with their friends in private, but the people who are expressing their opinions in public, such as on television or on the Internet, are not discussing anything. Rather, they are arrogantly telling us what we should believe. They are behaving like a dictator who is giving orders. We could also describe them as behaving like monkeys.

The dominant monkey does not discuss anything, and he does not compromise on anything. He does whatever he pleases, and if another monkey does not follow him, he tries to control that monkey by glaring at him, making noises, or hitting him. The dominant monkey uses intimidation and physical force to control the other monkeys.

When humans discuss issues, they usually behave like monkeys. They do not discuss the issue, or try to learn from one another. Instead, each of them, especially the men, behaves like an arrogant monkey who knows everything. Each person tries to intimidate the other people into being submissive. They make facial expressions, noises, and insults. Sometimes they yell at one another, and occasionally they get into fist fights. Those people are not having a "discussion"; rather, they are having an "argument" over who should be considered the leader.

We need to pass judgment on a person's value to society

Mark Cuban posted his reasons for supporting Apple's refusal to cooperate with the FBI, and underneath his article are some comments from other people. Some of those comments are unintelligible. For example, one comment has this sentence:

Real freedom comes from paradoxical rules of collective freedom paired with the need to support individual freedom, each defined as a unique combination of relativity every sovereign nation aspires to.

What does that mean? I realize that extracting one sentence from a document is unfair, and that all of us occasionally create confusing sentences and paragraphs. When I read some of the articles that I posted, I consider some of my sentences to be confusing, and I wonder if other people are misinterpreting them or confused by them. However, although it is unfair for me to extract that one sentence, even if you read his entire remark, you will not be able to make sense of it. His comment appears to have been created by a computer that put words together at random.

Every human is capable of putting words together into a grammatically correct sequence, but only some of those sequences carry intelligent information. However, every nation is ignoring the obvious fact that most people are only of average intelligence, and half the population is below average. Every nation is promoting the theory that most adults are capable of making excellent decisions in regards to voting, raising families, selecting meals for themselves, spending money, and gambling.

In reality, the majority of people would benefit by listening to the advice of people who are more intelligent and more responsible than they are. However, in order for the ordinary people to follow the advice of intelligent people, the ordinary people have to figure out who among us is capable of providing them with intelligent guidance. Unfortunately, when the ordinary people are allowed to make decisions about whose advice to follow, they follow the Pope, Lady Gaga, Prince Charles, Rush Limbaugh, Howard Stern, and Al Gore.

The photo to the right shows Mark Zuckerberg, Bono, Angela Merkel, and other "world leaders" at a United Nations dinner.

We need to raise standards for people in influential positions so that those people, the Pope, Lady Gaga, Queen Elizabeth, and thousands of other "world leaders" would be disqualified as leaders.

By setting higher standards for influential people, the children would be raised in an environment in which the influential people are providing intelligent guidance and encouraging productive behavior.

How do we control who gets into an influential position? We do exactly what the Jews are doing right now, except that we do it for a different purpose, and without the secrecy, deception, murder, and blackmail. Right now the Jews are analyzing political candidates, actors and actresses, athletes, singers, and scientists, and they are passing judgment on which of them should get favorable publicity. They promote and give Nobel prizes to the people that they approve of, and they ignore, suppress, blackmail, or murder the others.

The Jews promote the women who whine about oppression and promote feminism; the black people who give black people a bad image; the scientists who promote carbon taxes and the Holocaust; and the submissive puppets who speak only when told to speak.

We should do what the Jews are doing; namely, analyze people and pass judgment on which of them deserves to be put into an influential position. We should eliminate secrecy and keep track of everybody's life in a publicly accessible database. This would make it easier for us to determine who among us is honest, productive, intelligent, and worthy of an influential position. We should restrict the influential positions to people who are beneficial role models, and who inspire productive behavior and attitudes.

During the past few decades or centuries, the Jews have been passing judgment on which of us should be given an influential position, but we don't have to be subservient to the Jews. We can take control of our world and make our own decisions about who is going to be given an influential position. All we have to do is find enough humans among the horde of apathetic and selfish sheeple.

Eliminating secrecy will help us maintain our health

In other documents I explained that a database of information about everybody's life would help us understand medical issues. For a new example, consider how such a database would help us to understand some of the strange pains and sensations we feel.

Many men have experienced pain in their left arm for no apparent reason, and eventually somebody noticed the pattern that the pain was because their heart was having trouble, and the goofy design of the human body was causing nerves in their left arm to be stimulated by mistake. Further observations of people showed that men and women are not identical in regards to the symptoms of heart problems.

The concept of keeping a detailed database of everybody's complaints of pains, backaches, headaches, dizziness, digestive problems, and sleeplessness might seem idiotic, but it can help us to understand our bodies, and it can help us understand the differences between men and women, children and adults, different races, and the young and elderly.

My father was recently having kidney stones, and he noticed that he occasionally would get a vague pain around his left ear, and it would vanish quickly. He wondered if it was due to a kidney stone irritating his kidney, perhaps a tiny stone was passing through the tubes and causing a pain signal in the process. If we had a database of everybody's pains, we might discover that the people complaining about mysterious pains in their ear often have kidney stones. Or maybe those pains are due to the development of Parkinson's disease, which my father is now also starting to suffer from. Or perhaps we will discover that those pains occur randomly as people become old and our nerves deteriorate.

Donald Trump is getting the "Whitney Houston treatment"

After Donald Trump won the New Hampshire primary, some journalists posted insulting articles about him, and some also insulted the people who voted for him. The New York Daily News described the people who voted for him as "brainless", "brain dead", and "mindless zombies". That newspaper has had so many insulting images and headlines that if you did not know that it was a newspaper, you would assume it was entertainment. (They have a gallery of their covers about the 2016 presidential election here.)

The Huffington Post posted an article with the headline "A Racist, Sexist Demagogue Just Won The New Hampshire Primary". At the end of the article was a note:
Editor's note: Donald Trump is a serial liar, rampant xenophobe, racist, misogynist, birther and bully who has repeatedly pledged to ban all Muslims -- 1.6 billion members of an entire religion -- from entering the U.S.

I regularly criticize government officials as "incompetent", and voters as "sheeple", and I created many insulting images of people, so what is the difference between my articles and those from the New York Daily News and the Huffington Post? Am I hypocritical to complain about their insults? No. For one reason, I don't describe my opinions as "news". If I was being paid to write news articles, I would make an attempt to suppress my opinions.

Second, and more important, I provide explanations for why I describe people as sheeple, and why I describe government officials as incompetent. I am not "insulting" anybody. Rather, I am providing my critical analysis of them.

There is no clear dividing line between a "critical analysis" and an "insult", but don't let the complexity of modern life overwhelm you. People today should learn to pass judgment on when journalists and other people are trying to provide analyses, and when they are merely producing insults or propaganda.

The reason I am discussing the attacks on Donald Trump is to remind you of how easy it is for journalists to manipulate us. A person's opinions depend upon the information in his mind. If your mind is full of false or deceptive information, your opinions will be idiotic regardless of how intelligent you are.

We should demand that product descriptions be accurate

A restaurant that offers "lobster" dinners should provide lobster, but as I was writing this document, an analysis of 28 restaurants showed that 35% of the meat that they described as "lobster" was from some other creature. There was also an investigation of cheese that showed that some businesses were adding excessive amounts of cellulose to their cheese because it was an inexpensive filler, and some were substituting less expensive cheeses for more expensive cheeses.

Journalist are willing to expose the deception among restaurants and cheese producers, but if they were to do an investigation of news articles, they would discover that a significant percentage of news articles should be described as "false advertising" because they are either entertainment, or they contain lies and deceptive remarks in an attempt to manipulate the reader.

If the New York Daily News described themselves as the New York Daily Insults, I would not complain about them, but we should not tolerate journalists who describe entertainment, opinions, or insults as "news".

Likewise, when journalists interview people, they should be honest about the purpose of the interview. Is it for entertainment, such as to discuss what type of food, hobbies, or clothing the person enjoys? Or is it to help people get to know the person, such as by discussing his life and his goals? Or is it to get clarification on some of his theories or proposals? Or is it to confront him over issues that some people disagree with?

Unfortunately, journalists are not yet fired for deceiving people about their interviews. This is allowing journalists to get away with interviews in which they pretend to be truly interested in providing the person with a chance to explain his opinions, when in reality they are trying to manipulate the conversation and make the person look bad.

What is the difference between a "news article" and a school's "history book"? The difference should be that a news article is a brief description of one event that happened recently, whereas history books are a collection of descriptions about many events that happened years or centuries earlier.

What is the difference between the work of a journalist and the work of an author of a school's history book? The only difference should be that the journalist must write articles quickly, whereas the author of a history book can spend years doing research and editing. Other than that, their jobs are identical. Both a journalist and an author of a history book are analyzing events and passing judgment on which information about the event is valuable for other people to know about.

If journalists would write news articles properly, their articles would be valuable sources of information about the world. The authors of history books would be able to extract information from the news articles in order to create history books. Unfortunately, all nations have allowed a group of Jews to get control of their media and schools, and those Jews are censoring and criticizing the people and information that they don't approve of, and they are regularly lying to us about events and people.

By controlling which information gets into our minds, they are able to cover up their crimes, and they can cause us to like or dislike certain people, nations, and ideas. I explained how they did this with Whitney Houston (here) and Michael Jackson (here). The Jews also used this trick with Christopher Bollyn after he and his family disappeared mysteriously, but my information about him is scattered in several articles because I wrote them as events were happening, such as this.

Many people are concerned about the food they put into their body, but not many people show a concern about the quality of the information that they put into their mind. The people who are getting information from the television news, the New York Daily News, the Huffington Post, and other Jewish publications, are feeding their mind with what should be visualized as rotten, unhealthy food.

Most people would be disgusted with a restaurant if they purchased "beef stroganoff" and later discovered it was actually "roadkill stroganoff" that was made from whatever dogs, skunks, and oppossums the chef had picked up along the side of the road as he was driving to work. Ideally, people would be just as disgusted with journalists and authors who give us news and history that is actually lies, propaganda, or deception.

Actually, Trump is treated worse than Whitney Houston

The Jews were less insulting with Whitney Houston and Michael Jackson than they are with Donald Trump, and the journalists did not refer to the people who admired Houston or Jackson as "brainless" or as "mindless zombies".

No matter what Donald Trump says or does, many journalists criticize him for it. For example, when Donald Trump ignored a critical remark about Obama from one of his supporters, many journalists criticized Trump for ignoring the remark rather than reprimanding the person. At another speech on 8 February 2016, a woman in the audience yelled out an insult about Ted Cruz, and this time Trump stopped his speech to remind the audience that journalists had criticized him for ignoring remarks from his supporters, so he reprimanded her. When he realized that most of the audience could not hear her, he repeated her insult that Ted Cruz was a "pussy". And then he made such jokes as, "So I just want to tell you right now, ma'am, you're reprimanded!" and, "So, for the press, this is a serious reprimand. Just so the press knows."

I would describe the incident as amusing, but many journalists insulted him. One headline was: "Donald Trump Shocks With Vulgar Language Before New Hampshire Primary", but who did Donald Trump shock? I suspect that more people were entertained.

A journalist at the New York Daily News lied about the incident. Her headline was: "Donald Trump criticizes Ted Cruz, calls him a ‘pussy’ at New Hampshire rally". She repeated her accusation in the article: "Foul-mouthed GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump called his rival Sen. Ted Cruz a “pussy” Monday night..."

Donald Trump did not call Ted Cruz a pussy. If we had higher standards for journalists, they would be fired or arrested for such accusations. These journalists are not merely making mistakes; rather, they are deliberately trying to manipulate their readers with deceptive and false information.

Furthermore, the journalists show tremendous bias. For example, Ralph Peters, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, called Obama a "total pussy" during a television interview, and he said that people are "pissed off", but journalists did not criticize him for using those expressions.

Incidentally, his use of the word "total" is as meaningless as if he had said, "Obama is a total loser", or, "people are totally pissed off". A lot of people are using the word "total" and "totally" to emphasize an adjective, but that use of the word should be regarded as totally improper.

A lot of younger people today are also starting sentences with "so", and "I mean" but without any purpose. When I was a child, a lot of children would start sentences with "Ummm", and we were reprimanded for it, but not many adults today are dampening the use of idiotic expressions.

Why are British officials attacking Donald Trump?

The British government has a lot of problems to deal with, such as refugees, traffic congestion, crime, pollution, unemployment, rising healthcare costs, obesity, and overcrowding. And they still have not dealt with the pedophilia among their media companies, police departments, and government offices. However, despite all of their problems, they have chosen to waste some of their time on a debate about whether they should ban Trump from visiting Britain.

The British government claims that Donald Trump is spreading hatred, but we could say almost everybody is spreading hatred. The organized religions are spreading hatred by encouraging their members to believe that they are superior to everybody else. The Jews are spreading hatred by conducting false flag operations that create hatred of Muslims and Nazis. And journalists are spreading hatred with their insults of Donald Trump.

Why are so many Jews frightened of Trump

Tens of millions of people do not want Trump to become President, but they do not show much anger or fear of Trump. From my own casual observations, the people showing the extreme levels of anger and fear of Trump are Jews and people who support Israel. Considering that Trump's daughter is married to a Jew and converted to Judaism, and considering that Trump works with Jews all the time, why are Jews so frightened of him?

I think the Jews are worried that Trump will become president, and that they have no way to control him. Perhaps they don't have any useful blackmail material over him. To further frighten the Jews, Trump regularly shows more independence than other government officials. He has even stood up to a reporter who was trying to manipulate a conversation about abortion. Did you see this video? Trump says he likes to fight, and he showed it in that video. That is not the behavior that Jews want from us.

Some people think Trump is partly Jewish, but having a Jewish ancestor doesn't guarantee that a person will be a supporter of Israel, or a supporter of the Jews who murder, kidnap, rape, or spread diseases. Did you see this video of a Jew trying to smuggle diseased eucalyptus leaves into Australia? Does Trump support Jews who do that?

Update 29 February 2016: That video has been blocked but I extracted a few important sections.
If you can play a Microsoft Windows video, download this wmv video (22 mb). Some people cannot access my website, so pass them a copy rather than the link to it. A transcript of that video is here.

During this interview, Trump mentioned the issue of Bill Clinton's connection to Jeffrey Epstein. He did not say anything about that connection, but merely bringing up the issue is doing more than what most people have done; which is to ignore Epstein. Why didn't Trump ignore Epstein, also? Perhaps the reason is because Trump does not support what many people assume Epstein was doing; namely, offering men the chance to have sex with young girls, and then secretly recording them so that they can be blackmailed by the Jews. Trump may also be appalled with some of Epstein's victims.

Jews want us to be submissive, not independent

In order for the Jews to control a nation, they need to ensure that everybody in an influential position is under their control. When a political candidate gets favorable publicity, or when a person is given a major role in a Hollywood movie or television show, you ought to wonder why the Jews are willing to trust that person in an influential position. Don't assume that those people are simply more talented than the rest of us. The most likely reason that the person is getting publicity by Jews is because he is willing to get on his hands and knees and squeal like a pig when the Jews tell him to do so.

For example, when Barack Obama ran for president in 2008, not many Americans knew of him. People should have wondered why so many Jews were suddenly giving a lot of publicity to an unknown candidate. If you have ever overheard Jews insult black people and Chinese people, then you should be especially suspicious when Jews give favorable publicity to a black or Chinese person.

The Jews explained Obama's mysterious rise from obscurity as being due to the Internet, and my father was fooled with that propaganda. My father did not have a computer or know how to use the Internet, so he believed the news reports that Obama became popular because of the people on the Internet. However, I was using the Internet at the time Obama became popular, and I never noticed people on the Internet discovering Obama and spreading information about him. I only noticed some Jews promoting him.

I suspect that the Jews promoted Obama for president in 2008 because they wanted Hillary Clinton to win, and they wanted to provide her with opponents that she could beat. By offering Obama as an opponent, the Jews would fool the voters into believing that the Democrats offer a variety of choices for president, and that Democrats are more friendly to black people than the Republicans. The Jews undoubtedly expected Obama to lose in a Caucasian nation, and they didn't worry about giving Obama publicity because they assumed that they had enough blackmail material to control him.

The Jews were undoubtedly shocked and upset when Obama beat Clinton, but initially they did not worry because they assumed that he would follow their orders.

I think the Jews started the "birther movement" when Obama showed signs of rebellion and independence, and that they also spread accusations that Obama is homosexual or bisexual, that he used drugs, and that he lied about his college education. I think they released that information in an attempt to intimidate Obama.

All of the accusations were probably true; otherwise, they would have no value as blackmail material. Fortunately, some people in Hawaii apparently faked a birth certificate for him, and most of the population never noticed or cared about the other accusations.

Whenever you find Jews promoting a candidate, you ought to wonder how the Jews are controlling that candidate. For example, Wayne Madsen is claiming that Marco Rubio is homosexual and lying about why his parents left Cuba. Although Madsen and the other "truth seekers" cannot be trusted, most of what they say is the truth mixed with some propaganda.

Not many people notice or care about what Wayne Madsen posts on his website, so you might wonder why the Jews would want him to post those accusations. The reason is because it allows them to say to Marco Rubio, "Look at what Madsen is exposing about you on the Internet. If you cooperate with us, we will make sure that his remarks do not get any more publicity."

If Rubio shows a rebellious attitude, the Jews would go to the warehouse in Israel where they keep blackmail material, and they would provide Madsen with more information and better photos.

The Jews are not frightened of Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Hillary Clinton, or the other candidates, and that is a sign that the Jews believe that they can control them. Their fear of Donald Trump is a sign that they don't have any way of controlling him. To further frighten the Jews, Donald Trump repeatedly shows both independence and a willingness to fight the people who annoy him.

Trump is not the type of person the Jews want in a leadership position. The Jews are already furious that Obama has shown some independence, and Trump is much more independent than Obama, so he will be even more difficult to control.

The Jews want a candidate who has a personality like Bob Dylan and the other "celebrities" who are willing to follow orders in return for being provided with wealth and fame. Trump might have just as much craving for wealth and fame as the Hollywood celebrities, but he does not seem willing to become somebody's submissive puppet.

It's difficult to blackmail people who are fighters

The easiest people to blackmail are those who are submissive and timid. They will quietly do what the blackmailer demands. By comparison, a person who is more independent and more of a fighter may respond, "Go ahead and try it!"

The problem that blackmailers have is that blackmail is not of much value if everything is exposed to the public because that exposes the blackmailers also. The blackmailers do not want to get into a fight because they fear publicity. The victim is frightened by the blackmailer, but the blackmailer is frightened of being exposed.

If the victim refuses to give in to the blackmailer, the blackmailer may not be able to do anything about it. For example, Barack Obama ignored the birther movement, and even made some jokes about his birth certificate, but what could the Jews do about it? They could not release the information that they knew. If the television news reporters were to expose Obama's birth certificate as a fraud, that leads to the question of how the news journalists knew this information, and how many other people knew, and why all of these people kept this a secret for so many years. It exposes the Jews who have been blackmailing Obama.

Therefore, the birther movement could not expose the information that they knew about Obama. They could not announce to the public, "Here is a copy of Obama's birth certificate from Kenya." Instead, they had to say, "Are you sure that Obama was born in America? We would like to see proof. Can you provide us with a copy of his birth certificate?" They had to create the impression that they were just a small group of absurdly suspicious people. That charade caused most people to ridicule them as mentally unstable nitwits. And because they were not releasing any information that was truly harmful to Obama, Obama could ignore it.

It is also difficult for a person to be blackmailed if he has secretive information about the blackmailers because the victim can respond, "Go ahead and expose me, and I'll expose what I know about you!"

Blackmail works best when it can be done in secrecy; when the victim is easily intimidated; and when the victim doesn't know much about the blackmailer.

Donald Trump may not have done anything that he can be blackmailed over, and he may have the type of personality that will cause him to fight with anybody who tries to blackmail him.

Can you see the desperation among the Jews?

All political candidates are regularly criticized and insulted by journalists, but I think the Jews are attacking Donald Trump more than they have ever attacked any other candidate. I think the Jews are frightened that if Trump becomes president, they are going to lose control of America's government, and if that happens, they may lose control of other nations, also.

For another example of their desperation to ruin Trump's image, an article at claims:
"Exit poll date proves it: Trump is the candidate of voters who resent African-Americans and immigrants."

The Jews claim that Trump and his supporters are "racists", but everybody can be described as a "racist". Humans have a strong emotional craving to form groups that fight with one another, just like monkeys and dogs. Everybody considers the people of his particular race, religion, political beliefs, clothing styles, and food habits to be superior to those of other people. And don't forget that the Jews believe that they are the superior race, and that they have been specially chosen by God.

It is deceptive to describe only the supporters of Donald Trump as racist or arrogant. The supporters of Bernie Sanders are just as arrogant, and they think of themselves as superior to the Republicans, the Clinton supporters, and other groups.

Ideally, journalists, teachers, and other people in influential positions would educate people about our animal characteristics, and they would dampen our tendency to behave like packs of wild dogs, but the Jews are doing the exact opposite. They are encouraging people to think of themselves as superior to the Trump supporters. They are encouraging arrogance, hatred, and fights.

An article at insults Trump with such remarks as "a fundamentally unstable narcissist", and claims that his doctor prescribed Tenuate Dospan for him from 1982 to 1985. That drug is used as a diet drug, and one of its side effects is that it can interfere with a person's thinking abilities.

That article is trying to give Donald Trump a bad image, but I would say that it gives doctors and diet drugs a bad image. Diet drugs are more evidence that we need to get rid of our free enterprise system so that scientists can focus on something beneficial, such as understanding and maintaining human health, rather than looking for opportunities to exploit fat people, cancer victims, and elderly people.

Another example of how our free enterprise system creates conflicts of interest is in the news right now; namely, air pollution. Certainly you know that research projects have shown that air pollution can harm our health, but some recent studies have shown that it also seems to increase the formation of lentigines (the dark spots that form on our skin as we get older).

The most sensible reaction to lentigines and other health problems caused by air pollution, mercury, lead, and other toxic chemicals is to reduce the pollution, but businesses cannot profit from such activities. Therefore, the scientist who did the research on lentigines said that they were developing chemicals to put into cosmetic creams to reduce the detrimental effects of air pollution. This is as idiotic as the business that is selling bottles of Canadian air to the people in China. The free enterprise system encourages people to exploit and manipulate one another, not look for solutions to our problems.

Businesses profit from disposable cups, and by picking up the trash, but it would be better for society if children would drink from water fountains, and if adults would reduce their use of disposable items.
Children are also exploited by the free enterprise system. Consider the five-year study by New York University that discovered that school children are less obese when they are provided with access to drinking water. When schools do not provide drinking water, the children have a tendency to drink sodas, chocolate milk, and juice. Regardless of why it took them five years to figure that out, rather than provide the children with inexpensive water fountains, the schools were convinced to purchase water stations at about $1000 apiece. Each station has a lever that the children push to dispense water into a disposable plastic cup.

How much longer are we going to tolerate this idiotic free enterprise system that encourages us to exploit one another? As I described in an earlier document, millions of people boast that they can push themselves to do athletic activities, but it would be more useful if we admired people who can push themselves emotionally into experimenting with a better economic system.

We should also admire the people who can push themselves into experimenting with a better government system. I would say that diet drugs are another example of why we need a better government and school system, and why we need to put a different group of people in control of society. Specifically, we need leaders who have an understanding of science, especially genetics.

The people who don't understand genetics are promoting the theory that doctors, therapy, punishments, religion, and drugs can cure the people who are overweight, stupid, sickly, anorexic, dishonest, violent, psychotic, alcoholic, depressed, and retarded. Although our medical technology is capable of solving or reducing some of our medical problems, we are never going to understand or adequately deal with medical disorders until we take genetics into account.

What are Trump's true intentions?

Was Trump being truthful years ago when he claimed to be a friend of the Clintons? Or is he telling us the truth today when he says he never liked them and was only pretending to be their friend in order to use them for political favors? Does Trump really want to build a wall along Mexico? Or did he make that promise only to titillate the Republicans?

It is common for political candidates to make promises that they have no desire to fulfill, and no authority to fulfill. The reason candidates are so deceptive is because they have learned that they can attract more voters with simplistic promises than by providing intelligent, detailed policies. Republican voters, for example, respond favorably to candidates who promise to reduce taxes and government, but if a candidate were to provide a detailed explanation for how he was going to reduce taxes and government, the voters would argue that they don't like some of his decisions. The government employees and businesses that would be affected by his policy would be especially upset with him.

The candidates have learned that it is best for them to be vague and let each voter interpret his simplistic promises in whatever manner they please. The voters do not fire candidates who fail to fulfill promises, so none of the candidates have to be concerned about keeping their promises.

Furthermore, only a few voters - if any! - understand that America's government officials do not have any significant authority. America's Constitution was created by people who were frightened of government, and so they created a government that was very small, and which did not give any official much authority to do anything.

Although our government has grown in size, our government officials still do not have much authority. Therefore, political candidates can safely make promises to create jobs, reduce the size of government, build gigantic walls around the nation, and reduce taxes. None of the government officials, not even the President, has the authority to fulfill those promises, so if any of the voters complain to an official that he has not fulfilled his promises, the official can respond, "I am trying to, but the [liberals]/[conservatives] are blocking my attempts!" And they can use this excuse over and over, decade after decade.

Trump may be aware that it is in his best interest to be vague and make lots of promises. Even if he wants to keep some of his promises, he will not have the authority to do it, so he doesn't have to worry about making unrealistic promises.

A few months ago I wrote that I suspected Trump was running for president merely to help Clinton get elected. Clinton needs help in this election for the same reasons she lost to Obama. Namely, not many voters like her or her political opinions, and, even more important, animals have a natural preference to regard males as leaders, not females. Men want to worship and pamper women, not look to them for leadership. Therefore, the only way Clinton will get elected is if her Republican opponent is even less desirable than she. Since there are more Democrats than Republicans, Trump could get her elected by becoming the Republican candidate, and then, in the months prior to the election, making enough idiotic remarks so that only Republicans vote for him.

However, during the following 5 months since I wrote that speculation, so many Jews have shown so much fear of Trump that I now wonder if he actually wants to be president. Perhaps his original purpose for becoming a candidate was to help Clinton, but after he realized that he actually had a chance of getting elected, he may have decided he would rather be president. However, since there are more Democrats than Republicans, if Trump wants to get elected, he will have to make some promises that appeal to the Democrats. However, he should wait until he becomes the Republican candidate before he starts making promises to Democrats.

Another possible reason that so many Jews are frightened of Trump is because Trump may support only the Jews who have a personality that is similar to his own; specifically, Jews who are interested in wealth. Trump may not have an interest in Israel or Zionism. He may not even have any desire to help Israel cover up their crimes. This would explain why Jews are whining about his low level of support of Israel and his "anti-Semitic" remarks.

It is difficult to understand the motives of Trump and other people who rise to the top in business and government because they are not "ordinary" people. They ended up in unusual positions in life because there is something different about them. It might be easier for you to understand this concept if you consider how it applies to athletes.

The athletes who rise to the top of their particular sport are not "ordinary" people. In addition to having unusually athletic bodies, there is something different about their mind. For example, some may have unusually strong cravings to win, and some may have extremely strong attractions to competitive events, and I have heard a couple of them say they hate losing more than they enjoy winning. Michael Phelps has ADHD, and that disorder apparently caused him to become a misfit in society and spend most of his childhood focused on swimming.

There may be thousands of people who have a body that is just as athletic as the top athletes, but there is a difference between our minds that would prevent us from winning a sports contest. The two primary differences between the minds of successful athletes and the rest of us seem to be:
1) We don't have enough of a craving to win a sports contest, or enough of a dislike of losing sports contests, to be willing to train for hours a day, or to push ourselves to the point at which we are suffering from pain.
2) We don't have the type of mental disorders that seem to help some athletes to put a lot of time and effort into athletics.

We have a tendency to assume that people who excel in something are "better" than the rest of us, but in some cases, they simply have different personalities, and some of them may be more accurately described as "mentally defective", especially the people who rise to the top in government and business.

Our top business and government leaders do not seem willing to have an "ordinary" life. They want to be special. They want extreme wealth, fame, admiration, or status. Why are they unable to enjoy life as an "ordinary" person? What is different about their minds? And is that difference something we should admire?

All of us want to be wealthy and famous, but most of us don't care enough about wealth or fame to devote our lives to it. Also, most of us do not want to form friendships according to how we can benefit from the person, and we do not want to lie or commit crimes to achieve wealth or fame.

The successful political candidates have a reputation of saying whatever their supporters want to hear, and of hiding their true opinions. They behave like circus seals who do tricks for people who toss them fish. They are not people that we can trust or look to for guidance.

Trump does not seem to have the personality of a circus seal, but he shows a quality that we often find in top business and government officials; namely, they are more willing than the ordinary people to pretend to be somebody's friend in order to use him for their own benefit. The people who become successful want friends, not enemies.

Women have a natural tendency to select a husband according to his financial situation and social status, thereby resulting in lots of women selecting husbands that they don't have much of an interest in, but both men and women who rise to the top in business and government so frequently form friendships with people they do not like that nobody can be sure if any of those people truly like any of their friends.

All of us have to work with people we don't like, so all of us could be accused of pretending to like people we don't like. Some business executives and salesmen have to deal with hundreds of other executives, government officials, journalists, and customers, so they need an ability to work with people they don't like. However, we should pass judgment on when a person is merely cooperating with a person he doesn't like, and when he is pretending to like a person in order to exploit or abuse him.

For example, when an assembly line worker is pretending to like the person next to him on the assembly line, he is simply getting along with one of his team members. If, however, he was pretending to be his friend in order to sell him some of his used items at a high price, then he would be deceiving the person in order to exploit him, and he should be described as a "con artist".

How does Donald Trump treat people? Is he friendly with people he doesn't like simply to work with them? Or does he become friends with people so that he can abuse, deceive, manipulate, and exploit them?

Voters should take a look at a candidate's life and personality and pass judgment on why that candidate wants to be in a leadership position. Does he truly have an interest in society? Or is he interested only in fame, wealth, or pampering? Does he want to work with us, or does he want to exploit us?

Is Trump as naive as he appears?

As I've mentioned in other files, very few people have original opinions. Most people's opinions are just a collage of other people's opinions that they picked up during their life. Trump doesn't seem to have any original opinions, either. His opinions about 9/11, terrorism, guns, immigrants, refugees, and other issues seem to be just bits and pieces of opinions that he picked up from Jews and by watching the television news. For example, in this speech, he suggests that Saudi Arabia is responsible for the 9/11 attack, which is propaganda that the Jews are promoting.

If he becomes president, I would expect that somebody in the government or military will eventually let him in on the truth. What will Trump do when he discovers that his Jewish friends are actually liars and criminals who have been manipulating him and his daughter?

Perhaps the reason so many Jews are so frightened of him is that they are worried that when he learns the truth about Jews, he will be disgusted with Jews. Trump says he likes to fight, and he seems to be interested in fame, so he will get a lot more admiration, and have a much more exciting fight, if he helps to defeat Zionism.

Or does Trump already know the truth about the Jews and is only pretending to be naive? In which case, which group of people is Trump fighting for?

Since the voters don't care that candidates lie to them, make worthless promises, and are secretive and evasive, we might as well allow the candidates to be anonymous and wear masks. This would make the elections more amusing. This would also make the elections more popular than the Super Bowl and the Emmy awards. People all over the world would turn on their televisions to find out which candidate was elected, and watch the winner take off his mask and identify himself.

Our leaders should understand genetics

I mentioned that we need leaders who understand genetics so that they don't promote the philosophy that diet drugs are the solution to obesity. Another example of the importance of understanding genetics is the report in February 2016 that claims that the omega-3 fatty acids in fish seems to help protect us against Alzheimer's disease.

Two concepts that medical researchers, doctors, and other people in influential positions ought to understand in regards to health issues is that:

1) Each of us is a unique jumble of genetic traits with a unique set of imperfections, so there are subtle differences in what each of us needs in order to be in optimum health.

2) We cannot truly solve our health problems unless we control reproduction.

A diet that provides optimum health for one person will not necessarily be optimum for another person. The reason is because we differ slightly in our ability to digest foods, and absorb nutrients. Our bodies also have different abilities to produce the enzymes, proteins, and other chemicals that we need, and to maintain the levels of chemicals in our blood. Furthermore, we differ in our exercise routines, sleeping patterns, and drug use.

Many people claim that the reason we should eat fish is because it has an important omega-3 fatty acid, namely, DHA. However, the human body has the ability to produce DHA, so why do we need to eat fish?

Since each of us is genetically unique, there are some people who can produce DHA better than others. If a person does not have an ability to produce enough DHA, then his health may suffer, and he may improve his health by eating fish. This does not mean that you or I will benefit from eating fish.

Consider an obvious example of this concept; namely, a person whose body cannot produce enough insulin will benefit by injecting himself with insulin, but just because his health improves from insulin injections doesn't mean that you will improve your health with insulin injections.

Now consider a less obvious example of this concept; namely, salt, ie, sodium chloride. How much salt should humans eat each day in order to remain in optimum health? There is no answer to that question because we have different bodies, live in different climates, get different amounts of physical exercise, and perspire to different extents.

Some people believe that we are eating too much salt, but excessive amounts of salt may be beneficial to people who have certain types of medical problems. For example, excessive salt intake causes us to drink more water, and that in turn might help people with certain medical disorders. Perhaps it will help some people to wash out kidney stones before they become large, or rinse chemicals from their blood.

The same may be true of coffee and other diuretics. A "typical" person may not benefit from diuretics, but a person who has certain types of medical disorders might benefit from them.

Furthermore, I would not be surprised if high salt intake would be beneficial to people who are eating certain types of foods. For example, if a person has a diet that is high in oxalic acid, or some toxic chemical, he might benefit by eating a lot of salt or coffee in order to cause him to drink more water, which in turn helps wash the chemicals out of his blood.

The opposite situation is also likely. Specifically, there are undoubtedly some people whose health worsens with large intakes of water, perhaps because their kidneys are not working properly, in which case those particular people would improve their health by reducing their intake of salt and coffee.

Living creatures evolve to fit their environment

When the environment of a species changes, they evolve to fit the changes. For example, if coffee and salt are helping people with medical problems, then those people will have a better chance of survival and reproduction in this modern world now that they have access to unlimited amounts of coffee and salt. This in turn allows them to remain as healthy as everybody else, which allows them to reproduce and pass on their particular defects. After thousands of generations, the people will become so defective that they become dependent upon excessive amounts of salt and coffee.

Another example of this concept is the omega-3 fatty acids. If everybody starts eating fish every week, then the people who do not have the ability to produce enough DHA will be just as healthy as the rest of the population. Instead of becoming sickly, which would reduce their chances of successfully reproducing, they will be as healthy as everybody else, and they will be able to pass on their genetic defects to their children. Eventually the defects will spread through the population, and nobody will be able to produce their own DHA. The human race will become as dependent upon fish for this nutrient as we are dependent upon food for vitamin C.

I am another example of this concept. If I had been provided with thyroid hormones as a teenager, I undoubtedly would have ended up married and with children, and my children would have had a tendency to have thyroid problems, also.

Our ancestors could do whatever they pleased because nature took care of the defective people by killing them or making them suffer, but today we must make decisions on what we want the future generations to be. We must design society according to what we want humans to become, and we must control reproduction to prevent the human race from degrading into sickly, miserable, unhappy, dishonest, irresponsible, antisocial freaks.

Ideally, every generation will become healthier than the previous generation, not more dependent upon coffee, fish, spices, sugar, artificial flavors, vitamin supplements, cosmetic surgery, and medical drugs.

Ideally, each generation would also have better minds. Each generation should be better behaved, enjoy school more, be better able to hold jobs, be more sociable, be better able to form friendships and marriages, be more honest and trustworthy, be more responsible, and be more interested in contributing to and participating in society.

Ideally, people would not need to brush their teeth. Our mouth should be capable of cleaning itself, just like our eyes do. We don't have to brush our eyes with "eyeball paste" several times a day, and don't have to go to eye doctors for routine cleanings and repairs. Our nose should also be able to keep itself clean. And our digestive system should process food into relatively neat, clean packages rather than a stinky paste.

Why do so many people have crooked and defective teeth? Why are so many people suffering from headaches, depression, low self-esteem, backaches, and psychotic cravings for wealth or fame? Why are there so many people willing to lie, cheat, rape, and steal? Why are there so many people who depend upon alcohol, religion, television, or dogs to help them get through life?

The reason there are so many sickly and miserable people is because the genetically defective people have been reproducing for thousands of years, and their genetic disorders are accumulating and spreading throughout the population. If we continue on the path that we are on right now, the human race will degrade into freaks.

Unfortunately, we are not going to be able to make wise decisions about who should reproduce when we allow people to be secretive about themselves, and when we allow people to lie about their characteristics. We must have access to the truth about everybody's medical condition, mental qualities, and behavior. We should maintain a database with information about everybody from the moment they are born.

Incidentally, my experience with taking thyroid hormones during these past few years makes me wonder if doctors can truly determine whether a person has a thyroid problem simply by taking a blood test while a person is sitting in a doctor's office. I suspect we will get a better understanding of this hormone if we take one blood sample when the person is at rest, and another sample while the person is doing some intense physical activity, such as running on a treadmill. We might also get a better understanding of this hormone by checking levels when people become sick.

I suspect that the T3 thyroid hormone is "consumed" in the process of producing energy, in which case our body must be able to increase its production during mental and physical activities, and possibly when fighting diseases. Therefore, by measuring a person's levels of the T3 hormone at different times during the day, we would see how well his body is maintaining his levels.

Some people may produce adequate levels of thyroid hormones while they are resting, but be unable to increase the production adequately when they start doing physical or mental activities, thereby causing them to become tired too quickly. I suspect that that was my problem.

Admire people who can improve the world

Animals admire whichever animal reaches the top position of their hierarchy, and they reach those top positions by biting, kicking, snarling, and scratching. An animal is impressed by another animal's fighting ability. This is true for both the male and the female animals.

Our political debates are not serious job interviews. Rather, they are analogous to a group of animals that are fighting for dominance except that the political candidates do not bite and scratch one another. Instead, they fight with words and facial expressions.

The audience does not regard the debate as a job interview. They don't analyze the past performance of the candidates, or their proposals. Instead, they regard the debate as a battle with winners and losers. They don't pass judgment on which candidate has the best leadership abilities. Rather, they pass judgment on which candidate won the debate.

Different businesses use different techniques for hiring people, but every business hires people through a process that is more sensible than what we are using to select government officials.

Humans have the intelligence to create a system for selecting government officials that is more sensible than what we are doing right now. All we have to do is find enough people who are tired of our idiotic system and corrupt government officials, and who can push themselves into experimenting with a better system.

We currently admire people who can make a lot of money, climb a mountain, or win an athletic contest, but we would benefit much more if we admired the explorers and pioneers who are capable of facing reality, controlling their emotional cravings, and experimenting with improvements to society.

So, find that courage within you,

inspire other people,
and let's start the experiments!